[HN Gopher] CATL has announced a new "condensed" battery with 50... ___________________________________________________________________ CATL has announced a new "condensed" battery with 500 Wh/kg Author : rippercushions Score : 915 points Date : 2023-04-21 04:54 UTC (18 hours ago) (HTM) web link (thedriven.io) (TXT) w3m dump (thedriven.io) | nerpderp82 wrote: | Here come all the aircraft. | beaned wrote: | How was this achieved? It seemed like battery energy density | improvements were very marginal. I'd expect that this type of | jump could only be achieved with a new significant insight, but | the article seems to say it's just traditional process done | better and newer. That's very vague: | | > the condensed battery integrates a range of innovative | technologies, including the ultra-high energy density cathode | materials, innovative anode materials, separators, and | manufacturing processes | | Are these all things that are common knowledge now, and they're | just the first ones to slap them all together, and that it's a | short matter of time before all battery manufacturers start | providing much better density? Or is there something more to it? | Sugimot0 wrote: | IANAE but from what I've seen, there's been a lot of different | potentially "game-changing" breakthroughs in energy storage, | but the bottleneck lies in manufacturing capabilities. | "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" on Youtube has great content on | recent energy storage developments. | FabHK wrote: | Minor pet peeve: | | Energy density is energy per _volume_ (in GJ /m^3, for example, | or Wh/litre, or whatever). | | -> "X density" = X per volume | | What's discussed here is specific energy, ie energy per mass (in | Wh/kg, or whatever). | | -> "specific X" = X per mass | | The latter is particularly relevant for aviation, needless to | say. | acyou wrote: | You're right, and it's not just a minor pet peeve. It's a major | error that recurs throughout the article and it destroys the | credibility of the website and reporter. | | They even refer to "energy intensity", which as far as I am | concerned doesn't refer to anything. | mg wrote: | Key numbers: They doubled Wh/kg from about 280 to about 500. | | I assume that thinking about battery capacity form first | principles, the theoretical limit is reached when the charged | battery consists of 50% matter and 50% antimatter, right? | | Then during discharge, the reaction between the two would turn | the matter/antimatter into energy. | | How would that stack up against the 500Wh/kg stated here? | | Update: | | Did a bit of googling (Note to my future self: AI was still bad | at math in 2023): Looks like 1kg of mass cointains about 25x10^9 | Wh. | | So if the above assumptions are right, we still have 8 orders of | magnitude to go. An electric car with an optimal battery could go | 100,000,000 times further on a single charge than the current | ones. | budoso wrote: | it'd be quite a bit better | atleastoptimal wrote: | probably better | dojomouse wrote: | No. That wouldn't be a battery by any meaningful definition, | nor have any similarities in implementation or enabling | technology or physics. | | But it would deliver 24 trillion wh/kg... so by that metric at | least we've room to progress :-) | asdfman123 wrote: | A unit containing matter and antimatter isn't a battery, it's a | completely different thing altogether. | | Maybe a slightly closer but still very different example would | be a core of weapons grade plutonium. But what you've described | would be far more powerful than that. | Moldoteck wrote: | well, maybe if we'll get batteries with uranium/plutonium, we | may get closer to that capacity/performance, but I guess it's a | long road to there) | inasio wrote: | Ridiculously higher. One gram of matter converted to energy | (matter-antimatter annihilation assumed to be 100% efficient) | yields, using E = mc^2 and 3.6x10^6 Joules per Kilowatt-hour, | 25 million Kilowatt-hours | itissid wrote: | Would a bunch of economists and sustainability researchers have | to redo their calculations for how sustainable the electric | vehicle future just became? | fock wrote: | and then in Germany right wing/neoliberal politicians run around, | make smug faces and tell people: ooooh, we need e-fuels because | those combustion engines, they are sooooo good, the chinese are | envious and will just copy (yes. for tanks...). | | During their reign: | | - solar industry: gone (in the 2000s germany had everything, | domestically produced) | | - wind energy: gone (well, Siemens did it themselves too) | | - existing domestic electronics production: gone (Siemens had | highly automated facilities producing state of the art | mainboards...) | | - in the pandemic masks were bought in China for billions. All | the while the automation companies newly taken over by their | Chinese joint venture partner were happy to show people how they | built those in their chinese factories... | | They call it responsible, I call it Seppuku... | | Oh and of course they now want to build nuclear plants after | they've shown for the last 30years that we have reached a state | of more dysfunctional oligarchy than the Soviet Union ever was | (they changed their system! Here the mantra is "There Is No | Alternative"). I congratulate the chinese oligarchy for somehow | keeping an interest in the physical world and fleecing two | continents of 1200 million people for all they built and some | more while their people are infighting on idiotic frontlines. | j16sdiz wrote: | > Oh and of course they now want to build nuclear plants after | they've shown for the last 30years that we have reached a state | of more dysfunctional oligarchy than the Soviet Union ever was | | I can't express how much I _hate_ this. In terms of technology | and engineering, nuclear is now so mature that it should be | used everywhere solar doesn 't make sense. _Yet_ , in terms of | politics, society and governance, we are still stuck in the | state of 1970s. Putting nuclear in their hands is just | irresponsible | jpgvm wrote: | China is.going to have the largest fleet of nuclear reactors | in the world, all within a decade or two. We can bitch and | moan all we want about their governance system but when it | counts they are always the ones doing the right thing while | Western governments hold their dicks and piss into the wind. | cinntaile wrote: | You seem to imply this is a sign of a failing of the west. | I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion based on your | data point, they produce everything for everyone and they | have 1.5 billion inhabitants. It doesn't exactly come as a | surprise that they require a lot of energy. China already | has the largest coal, solar, wind, hydro energy production | in the world. | jpgvm wrote: | It is a failing of the West. | | We had a giant first mover advantage and didn't just | squander it but fell behind the Chinese by a full | generation. | | We should be living in a post-scarcity era for energy. | Instead we are contending with $80 crude prices and a | future of trying to build a grid out of itermittent | sources a lots of storage. None of that would have been | necessary had we not dropped the ball. | [deleted] | MK4XNTJGUW wrote: | It's ridiculous to dump these failures on the right | wings/neoliberals. The actual government (and past governments) | should take responsibility for the dumpster fires. | ConcernedCoder wrote: | so I worry a bit about energy density when it comes to | accidents/battery breakage/fires/explosions/ect... anyone have | any idea if these batteries are any safer than the currently used | tech? | CameronNemo wrote: | This is a different battery chemistry. It does have a different | fire risk. Not sure about this chemistry, though. | SubiculumCode wrote: | as an American I am concerned this innovation is coming out of | China. | giantg2 wrote: | 1200wh/kg is when it will get really interesting to me. Half the | weight and double the range would be great. Plus, electrified | ultralight "aircraft" start to have numerous advantages over the | traditional 2 stoke engines. | audunw wrote: | Why would it only be interesting at that point? At 500wh/kg, if | the cost is low enough, you're already going to eliminate | fossil fuels from basically everything except long range | flights and shipping. | | > Half the weight and double the range would be great | | You don't need to quadruple energy density to achieve that. If | you just half the weight (without increasing the total amount | of energy in the battery), you're going to significantly | increase range. The less weight you have, the less energy you | need to move the vehicle. | | > Plus, electrified ultralight "aircraft" start to have | numerous advantages over the traditional 2 stoke engines. | | I think you'll have plenty of benefits with ~300wh/kg (that's | the target for many useful eVTOL aircraft). | | The key challenge is you should redesign the whole aircraft | around electric flight to get the full benefits. Look at NASAs | Maxwell X-57 for an example of how that could look. | | With 500wh/kg you can start taking over most regional flights. | Yes, the range won't be as good as jet planes. But jet planes | have FAR more range than they need because they don't design a | special purpose aircraft for shorter range. They just put less | fuel in. | | But it'll probably take 10-20 years regardless of when we get | good batteries because it'll take a long time to design and | certify the aircrafts. | giantg2 wrote: | Ultralight have a very specific set of regulations. 500wh/kg | is where you can really start to use it in that application. | Currently there are models with electric, but it's about 1 | hour flight time (advertised) and you don't have great | margins. If you can reduce the weight and get a true 2 hours, | then that would replicate the characteristics of today's 2 | stroke. | | Another point is that it won't take very long for ultralight | since they aren't technically defined as an aircraft but as | an air vehicle. You can home build them. | | Yes, you might see a 10% increase in range with half the | vehicle weight. If you tow or take long trips, you want | double the range. At that density, you're choosing one or the | other, or an "eh" compromise. I want 800 miles and less | weight/size. This can especially be useful for retrofit kits | for existing vehicles for people who hate all the tech in the | EVs. | flavius29663 wrote: | > But it'll probably take 10-20 years regardless of when we | get good batteries because it'll take a long time to design | and certify the aircrafts. | | I'm wondering if large aircraft companies are actually | already designing the next aircraft based on assumed battery | densities? I know they put out press releases with nice | looking renderings, but I am talking about serious | development? | | If you wait until you have the batteries on hand, and then | spend 20 years to design a plane (and 20 years might be | conservative, since arppovals will be harder to get for a | brand new concept), you might be left behind. Instead, they | could be already designing the plane and when 500Wh/Kg is | available, boom, they are 15 years ahead. | Tade0 wrote: | > During the presentation, CATL said its working with partners on | the development of electric passenger aircraft practicing | aviation-level standards and testing in accordance with aviation- | grade safety and quality requirements. | | Get ready for passenger drones[0], delivery drones[1] and just | drones in general, because this is what this breakthrough means | really. | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw6HDgv4ekE | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOWDNBu9DkU | [deleted] | wuming2 wrote: | I do wonder sometimes if scraping the million plus of components, | produced and assembled with great care into a ICE car and still | relatively new, makes any sense. Re-powering seems no brainer to | keep millions of new cars out of the scrapyard. And avoid the | environmentally unsustainable production of slightly newer cars. | Reusing them whole, engine included, is ideal. If battery re- | powering, synthetic gasoline and hydrogen re-powering are not | viable for multiple reasons I wonder what the best pool of | options is. | hoofhearted wrote: | I believe that current car racing trends will paint a picture | of the future of automobiles. | | The hybrid area is among us, and the technology used is so well | thought out and advanced. | | Hybrid as in "go incredibly fast", and not "save gas" like as | with a Prius. | | Currently in F1 and the new prototype classes, they are using | electrification in conjunction with the internal combustion | engine to create more instantly available horsepower. | | They are using twin turbo 6 cylinder engines, and anything that | has large rotational mass has been electrified with motors. The | turbos, crankshaft, and camshafts all have hybrid electric | assist motors built into them to combat inertia. They then have | incredibly engineered heat recovery systems built into the | brakes and turbos. They collect the heat and convert it into | electric to recharge the battery. Additionally, when the | electric assist motors aren't providing power to their | components, their function is reversed and they become | generators that also feed to the battery. | | I don't believe the streets have ever really even seen electric | assist turbos and crankshafts lol. Ford only recently realized | that you could make more fuel efficient and reliable power with | less displacement using forced induction. | fnordpiglet wrote: | I think the age of Rube Goldberg dinosaur fumes fire machines | is over and the age of Maxwells Equations is upon us. It's | sort of like college physics progression I just realized. | hoofhearted wrote: | Do you believe that Saudi Aramco is just going throw their | arms up and be like "well, the dinosaur fumes era is over | everyone! Pack it up." | | The two technologies of electric and combustion are going | to coexist with each other. | | The rebirth of F1 into this new hybrid generation, as well | as the new dPi hybrid prototype class will prove to you | that Maxwells Equation is not close, and we breaking a new | era of acceleration, braking, downforce, top speed, and | fuel efficiency. | fnordpiglet wrote: | I don't think F1 is going to save Saudi Aramco. People | don't generally need a super racing machine. Maxwells | equations delivers a simpler machine that satisfies all | needs of any user beyond the most exotic. The Rube | Goldberg machine is the actual death of ICE - as a | manufacturer, who have much more influence on cars, why | do I want to build and design these incredibly complex | machines when I could dramatically simplify the entire | chain of design, production, distribution, and | maintenance by hosting a sled with batteries and some | inductive motors. Once the scale of production reaches | ICE levels the efficiencies of market will just destroy | the ICE market. Making a more complex ICE for some exotic | benefit for race car drivers isn't going to shift that | economics. Oil producers are way too far down the chain | to have much a voice. | ricardobeat wrote: | F1 is like a test bed for new vehicle technology. It's | not that you'll buy a race car, or a race car engine, but | those discoveries will filter down into consumer | products, like they have in the past: paddle shifters, | KERS, hybrid engines, rear diffusers, traction control, | drive by wire, the dual clutch, plus probably a ton of | improvements in tires, fuel injection, safety, | suspensions etc. | | So if a hybrid engine that significantly increases ICE | efficiency (already the case, F1 engines are 40% more | efficient than normal cars) can become mainstream and be | a better fit for particular use cases, it could extend | the life of gasoline-powered vehicles for a while. | maherbeg wrote: | F1 has gotten further and further away from production | deployment vehicles in favor of more entertainment for | the crowds. Tires all degrade to enable more strategy, | and the ground effect cars are now designed for closer | racing which production vehicles don't care about. Le | Mans has more production relevance than F1 now. | fnordpiglet wrote: | I can buy that. But I'll bet you the marginal cost of all | the added complexity will (as scales of economy in the EV | manufacturing process) more than offset marginal engine | efficiency gains, especially if electricity prices stay | significantly cheaper than gasoline. | | I think the reality is the ICE is a technology whose time | has come. It's overly complex and has to be close to | optimal given the sheer time and energy spent perfecting | it. The EV is far from optimality and it's improvement | rates will likely be staggering over the next 20 years. | It's ok. The ICE had its day, and it was cool. Now it's | time for flying drone cars. | ricardobeat wrote: | The USA actually has _more_ oil reserves than Saudi | Arabia. Adding Canada, you have more than double. The | production cost is higher, but technology adapts... SA | can 't really decide when this era is over. | hoofhearted wrote: | I'd like to submit into evidence the new Mercedes AMG One.. | | The most advanced hybrid hypercar to hit the streets. | Complete with the same MGU-MGK electric hybrid assist and | energy recovery systems used in F1. | | https://youtu.be/Tm4rkRpoapw | fnordpiglet wrote: | As a dad driving my kids to gymnastics why would I buy a | hyper car? | flavius29663 wrote: | that seems very unlikely to be honest. Commercial cars are | sold first on reliability and operating costs, which is why | Americans are shying away from buying cars that have a basic | turbo and prefer larger gas engines instead. | hoofhearted wrote: | This is completely false lol.. Which Americans are shying | away from turbo cars exactly? | | Pretty sure Ford and GM have an entire lineup of fuel | efficient turbo cars out right now. Ford has the ecoboost | engine line, so I'm confused on what data you are looking | at? | flavius29663 wrote: | Buyers are shying away from them. I was on the market for | a truck, and I saw the discussions. | jeffbee wrote: | Mass-producing IC engines, even complicated state-of-the-art | ones, is exceedingly simple and cheap. Assembling an EV battery | is actually pretty damned hard and energy-intensive. This is | all reflected in the price. If it were easy to make an EV | battery, they would cost less. If it was hard to make an IC | engine, there would be no $4500 motorcycles. | foota wrote: | To what degree do you think this reflects learning over time? | My impression is that high precision manufacturing is | something that we've gotten very good at, but that doesn't | necessarily mean it's easy. | jeffbee wrote: | I don't see what the difference is between being good at | something and it being easy. I think the prices of these | things are indicative. The fact that an ICE has a bazillion | parts is superficial, aesthetic, and irrelevant. A bicycle | chain has 400 moving parts, state-of-the-art metallurgy, | and costs $10. | foota wrote: | I guess it's a question of whether battery production | will one day be easy as well. Certainly, 200 years ago | modern ICE production wouldn't have been easy, so maybe | we're just at a similar point in the history of battery | production. | lannisterstark wrote: | I swear I've been reading this headline for last 15 years. | asdfman123 wrote: | That's because you have: battery performance keeps getting | dramatically better. | sanderjd wrote: | This one seems pretty different to me, because it is "largest | battery manufacturer to start mass producing these this year" | rather than "promising startup has battery breakthrough that | they need to convince someone to actually manufacture". | acyou wrote: | For me, this signals CATL is either actually on the verge of a | breakthrough, or desperate and in big trouble. If the technology | is brand new, how can it have been thoroughly life and cycle | tested already? | | I will believe the batteries are truly ready for prime-time after | approx. 5 years of real world service. That's enough time to see | the creeping, unforeseen issues that tend to crop up with | batteries. Dendrite growth, structural failure, etc etc. They | could be shipping millions of cars in 2025 with these and I | would, rightly, still have my doubts. | | A breakthrough based on solid state electrolyte sounds very | plausible. But look at the presentation graphic. They get the | translation of "energy density" wrong. | samsondelilah wrote: | [flagged] | eunos wrote: | Manchin and Youngkin already getting restless. | crypot wrote: | Why are people trying to turn this into a story about Tesla? | | It must be quite the threat to get so many paid Tesla shills | commenting on this. | vrglvrglvrgl wrote: | [dead] | [deleted] | christkv wrote: | Nice this would mean potentially cheaper electrical cars with | same or longer range than today or more expensive cars with much | longer range than today. | msravi wrote: | I just realized how much energy efficiency is being squeezed out | of a Tesla. It's incredible. | | A normal diesel fueled sedan such as the Chevy Cruze diesel runs | at about 31mpg, which is 13.2 km/l or 15.3 km/kg. Diesel has a | mind-boggling 12700 Wh/kg energy density[1], which translates to | an efficiency of ~827 Wh/km for the Chevy. | | By contrast, the Tesla Model S, has a ~540 kg battery[2]. At 272 | Wh/kg (from the posted article), that's ~147 kWh of energy | storage, and the Tesla can do a rated 650km on a single | charge[3]. So that's an efficiency of ~225 Wh/km, which is ~27% | of the energy required to run a normal car! | | It just wouldn't have been possible to run cars on batteries | without this efficiency bump. | | 1. | https://chemistry.beloit.edu/edetc/SlideShow/slides/energy/d... | | 2. https://blog.evbox.com/ev-battery-weight | | 3. https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-s | [deleted] | chrismorgan wrote: | > _225 Wh /km_ | | Meanwhile, fairly common cycling parameters lead to well under | 10 Wh/km at comfortable cruising speeds, and with things like | velomobiles you kinda _start_ around 5 Wh /km, and 3 Wh/km is | possible without significantly compromising the practicality of | the vehicle. | | Sure, sure, lower speeds, lower cargo capacity, lower safety, | _& c. &c._ | | But it's still a useful comparison to contemplate, especially | when considering the nascent category Lightweight Electric | Vehicles, which in its most interesting form isn't far off | "ebike minus pedals". Cars are still pretty power-inefficient | as a general concept. | twobitshifter wrote: | Something you left out here is that the full capacity of the | battery can't be used. Tesla uses more of the battery than | other manufacturers, which gives them a higher range per rated | watt hour. | | On top of that, they have more efficient components. When you | compare a model S to a lightweight Carbon Fiber BMW i3, with a | much smaller pack, you'll see that the modelS still squeezes | out a higher mpgE rating. | | https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=46207&... | gambiting wrote: | How the hell a Chevy Cruze gets 31mpg with a diesel??? A VW | Passat TDI will easily get 60+ imperial MPG, I've had it get | close to 70 on long runs(that's 50 and 58 American MPG | respectively). | | Are American diesels this inefficient?? Looking at pictures | online the Chevy cruze doesn't seem like a bigger/heavier car | than a Passat, so what gives?? | kube-system wrote: | I think they were citing city fuel economy. Some trims of the | Cruise did get 50+ US MPG highway (when it was still sold | here) | | Although I completely forgot it existed. There are not many | diesel passenger cars on US roads. Diesel is consistently | more expensive than petrol here. | dahwolf wrote: | Here in the Netherlands, we'd translate 31mpg to "1 per 11". | One can drive 11km on 1L of fuel. 1 per 11 is a joke. It's | associated with heavy petrol cars from the 80s and 90s, | before anybody even attempted efficiency. | | Even my 15 year old diesel car had an efficiency of 1/22. | Adjust you driving style and I'd get 1/25. Range: 1000km, | with an ordinary sized tank. | | It seems Americans haven't even started with efficiency, | quite likely because there was no pressure to do so due to | low fuel prices. Not in their homes, not in their cars, not | anywhere. | mardifoufs wrote: | That's why Tesla started in europe. Right? | dahwolf wrote: | What does that even mean? | weberer wrote: | What's with these weird, grandiose generalizations I've | been seeing about America on this site, based on single | data points? | | Do you realize that other brands and models exist in the | USA? Do you realize Tesla is and American company? Did you | even check look into Chevy Cruze's mileage? Here's a guy | getting 70mpg in a Chevy Cruze by driving 55mph on the | highway. That's 30km/l. | | https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15341744/the-prince-of- | pa... | gambiting wrote: | In my defense - I replied to someone who gave the 31mpg | number. I should have verified that information myself | first. | mardifoufs wrote: | [dead] | mvanbaak wrote: | > 13.2 km/l | | For diesel, this is really really bad. Most gasoline cars will | run more economic than this, let alone diesel. If your diesel | runs less then 17 to 18 km/l something is wrong. | | (my opinion is based on how things are in .nl, other parts of | the world can and will be different of course) | manuelmoreale wrote: | Yeah 13.2km/l for a diesel is quite terrible if we're talking | regular cars. I personally average in the 20 to 25 range with | mine. | steveBK123 wrote: | Relative efficiencies also explain why city/highway efficiency | is inverted between EV & ICE. | | Gasoline is rather energy dense, but the ICE is rather | wasteful. There is a certain base load of energy being | generated by an ICE engine, regardless of if you are moving or | how slow you go. This is why carmakers experimented with things | like rapid stop/start engines, regen batteries&motors, etc. | | ICE becomes more efficient as you reach highway speeds, which | is why highway mpg is better than city mpg. | | Batteries by contrast are not very energy dense, while EV | motors are extremely efficient. The only energy being consumed | is that which is needed to move the car, plus fight rolling & | wind resistance, and power AC/heat. Wind resistance increases | with the square of speed. | | EVs as a result are most efficient at low speed, and at highway | speeds become noticeably less efficient as you go from | 55->65->75mph. This is also why running AC/heat has a | noticeable impact on range in EVs. | kwhitefoot wrote: | Maximum heating power in my 2015 Tesla Model S 70D is 6 kW. | Travelling for 100 km at 100 km/h costs about 25 kWh. I drive | in shirtsleeves and barefoot in the Norwegian mountains at | -200C and the heater doesn't seem to be running hard. So | unless you are traveling in severe arctic conditions the | heater really isn't more than a few percent of the load. | | Teslabjorn has a video where he turned his Model X into a | sauna getting 400C inside while it was -100C outside. | steveBK123 wrote: | Had a model 3 for 4 years, have another EV now. It really | depends on the type of driving. Sure, if you are making a | long road trip at high speeds then its probably negligible | though still noticeable. | | But being in Northeast US with constant traffic.. I used to | have to park outdoors so the car would get cold soaked down | to 20F in winter, and never really have sufficient time to | warm up unless I was going for a 1hr+ drive. | | Winter driving local roads, below-25mph stop&go, 2-5mi | trips running errands.. Could see some really crazy | consumption numbers pop up like 500-800Wh/mi+ versus the | rated 250Wh/mi. Now it doesn't necessarily amount to much | because it's on short single-digit mile trips, but it does | happen. This stacks with the general cold weather | efficiency losses of EVs.. | dahfizz wrote: | Meh, the only reason EVs are more efficient in the city is | because of regen braking. | | An ICE car traveling at a constant 30mph is going to get much | better fuel economy than an ICE car traveling at a constant | 75mph. The difference is that <=30mph roads usually have a | lot of stop-and-go. | steveBK123 wrote: | ICE efficiency also more driven by RPM & therefore where | you are in the gears. So ICE designers have decisions to | make about which speeds to optimize for. | | ICE peak efficiency tends to be more around 45mph than | 30mph. | | But yes, the less you brake in an ICE, the more efficient. | Hybrids give you a bit of the ICE range/highway efficiency | with the EV city driving efficiency, with the added | complexity of having ICE & EV under one hood. | rootusrootus wrote: | A modern 8-10 speed automatic transmission can easily put | the engine at or near the ideal consumption RPM whether | it's 30 mph or 80 mph. | | If we really cared about efficiency, we'd have smaller | motors. Throttling decreases efficiency, so the best | mileage is going to be cruising at WOT (naively assuming | no fuel mixture enrichment, which isn't always true). A | classic example of this strategy is an old Geo Metro. | Light, tiny motor, and barely capable of maintaining | highway speed using peak horsepower. | steveBK123 wrote: | Right, I think what sometimes gets discounted with EVs is | .. they are really easy to make a no-compromise vehicle | compared to ICE. You can make an ICE fast, but you'll pay | for that at the pump. | | You can make an EV that is as fast as a Porsche but | highway cruises like a Prius. It's up to the idiot behind | the wheel if they prefer to go fast or go far. | | I remember in high school my "fast for a regular car" | Pontiac did 0-60 in about 7sec. This is achievable in a | Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt now. The most low price, | vanilla and dated tech in EVs you can buy. | | EV buyers will quibble about 0-60s in the 4 second range | that aren't even sold as "performance". You used to have | to buy a BMW of M designation to achieve these types of | numbers in a 4 door sedan, and get the horrible MPG along | with it. | | The chunky hatchback crossover MachE GT Mustang EV is | faster than an ICE Mustang Mach 1 which gets a mid-teens | MPG.. | jvanderbot wrote: | in practice, I get 400Wh/mi. So, 50%? | [deleted] | onion2k wrote: | BMW claim that a diesel 3 series will get 61mpg. Volkswagen | reckon a Golf 2.0 TDI will do 68mpg. Electric is still | significantly better, but you didn't need pick a terrible | diesel car as an example. | msravi wrote: | This has the 2022 BMW 3-series pegged at between 22-28 mpg | for city driving. US gallons, since the site is Houston site, | I suppose. | | https://www.advantagebmwhouston.com/2022-bmw-3-series- | fuel-e... | gambiting wrote: | All the models listed are petrol(gas) powered so of course | they get much worse mpg. | teamonkey wrote: | As a VAG diesel owner, they don't get close to the marketing | figures. Knock 15-20% off for all practical driving. | [deleted] | maccard wrote: | Even more confusingly, what the US calls a gallon isn't the | same as what other countries call the gallon. It's about a | 20% difference. | VulgarExigency wrote: | Not that confusing, only the US measures fuel in gallons, | isn't it? Everyone else just uses liters. | frankfrankfrank wrote: | [flagged] | [deleted] | Maken wrote: | Clam down, we are just talking about how measure systems. | And the previous ones existed not because of cultural | differences, but because every king and tyrant wanted to | decide which stick their vassals should use to measure | the world. | onion2k wrote: | _Ah yes, the endless march to turn humanity into a | singular blob of consistent units of nature, under a | banner of the opposite._ | | The entire world uses metric units apart from America, | Libya and Myanmar. | https://worldpopulationreview.com/country- | rankings/countries... | | What I _absolutely love_ about this fact is that America | is still using British Imperial units. After literally | having a war over whether or not the US should be | independent of British rule, you 're still holding on to | our measuring system despite the rest of the world moving | on. | saalweachter wrote: | They aren't British Imperial units. They're US customary | units. | | They were standardized separately, and vary slightly to | considerably from the British Imperial counterparts. | tom_ wrote: | We already pretty much did it for measuring time, and | very helpful it has proven too. So why not other | dimensions as well? | | There'll be plenty of diversity left, trust me. | grosun wrote: | The UK may be the most confusing; fuel is sold in litres, | but fuel efficiency is expressed in MPG, and furthermore | the gallons aren't the same as US gallons. I guess at | least the miles are the same! | spacebanana7 wrote: | I suspect the British fuel system is designed to hide the | cost per mile of driving, at least tacitly. At present | it's difficult to work out without some external tool. | OJFord wrote: | It's more like once it's established it's hard to change | - if you started listing 'miles per litre' _that_ would | be like it was 'designed to hide the cost of driving', | because I would have no idea how that compared. | | (Quite normally for my age in the UK I think, I'm | familiar with both metric & Imperial measurements, but | generally fairly bad at converting. Except I know 568ml = | 1 (UK! Not US!) pint - for which I can thank my alma | mater _Imperial_ and its student bars: _Metric_ , and | _FiveSixEight_. I could probably guess effectively at lbs | and kg from butter /flour. Of course I know 2.54cm = 1". | A yard is 'a bit' less than 1m. It's the bigger ones that | seem more obscure/are harder to work out from familiarity | I suppose.) | nordsieck wrote: | > It's more like once it's established it's hard to | change - if you started listing 'miles per litre' that | would be like it was 'designed to hide the cost of | driving', because I would have no idea how that compared. | | 1. I think with liters, people typically reverse the | relationship so it's liters/100km. Which is a much more | intuitive unit. | | 2. If you're buying gas in liters, I think it'd be a lot | easier to switch over to using liters for efficiency. You | may not be able to compare easily to other vehicles, but | you'd be able to estimate your personal fuel more easily. | rootusrootus wrote: | > a much more intuitive unit | | I think it's the other way around. Distance per quantity | of fuel is the intuitive measurement that humans | understand and can relate directly to how much fuel they | purchase. It could be argued that it is less intuitive | when comparing two cars, however. Although better MPG is | still strictly better, which is about the level of detail | most non-nerds care about. | masklinn wrote: | An other possibility is that the brits like having wonky | things, just look at the pre-decimalisation monetary | system, or the counties (https://youtu.be/hCc0OsyMbQk). | xnorswap wrote: | We only switched to selling by the litre in the early 90s | (presumably for the sake of EU alignment), it was sold in | Gallons until then. Expressing efficiency in MPG is just | something that had "stuck" by then. | lil_cain wrote: | UK was legally obliged to by the EU. See the "metric | martyrs" for how weirdly controversial this all was. | onion2k wrote: | Not quite. The EU directive said that governments should | _if they wanted_ pass a law to say metric units should be | displayed. The UK government chose to ratify that law, | but with the caveat that imperial units could be | displayed as well if shops wanted to display them (and | most did). | | At no point was it ever illegal do display the old units. | There were no martyrs; there were only idiots. | masklinn wrote: | > I guess at least the miles are the same! | | Only since the 1958 International Yard and Pound | Agreement tho. Before then the US used what is now known | as the Survey Mile, which is why the survey mile exists | (and survived until this year). | [deleted] | Aromasin wrote: | The UK also does for some God awful reason (especially | infuriating considering it's sold by the litre at the | petrol station). | | In the United States and some other countries, a gallon | is equal to 128 fluid ounces or 3.785 liters. Meanwhile, | in the United Kingdom and some Commonwealth countries, a | gallon is equal to 160 fluid ounces or 4.546 liters. | madeofpalk wrote: | The UK also uses pints for dairy milk, but litres for | plant-based milks. UK must be completely disregarded if | you're looking to make sense about what units to use. | maccard wrote: | They're sold in pints but labelled in litres. My | supermarket sells .568, 1.13 and 2.26L containers. | masklinn wrote: | In fairness the fluid ounces are _also_ different, an | Imperial (english) fluid ounce is 28.41306mL, while a US | Customary fl oz is 29.5735mL. So the Imperial floz is 96% | the US customary, not enough to account for having 25% | more of them in a gallon, but it does lead to the | Imperial gallon only being 20% larger than the customary | gallon. | | But wait there's more! The US also has the "food | labelling" fluid ounce which is _not_ the customary one, | instead it's exactly 30mL. | hutzlibu wrote: | And yet we claim to live in a science based society. | | I mean, there are a million things, that do not need | universal standards, but standards are imposed anyway. | | But where one standard would be really helpful, like | scientific values, we have many. And some people would | rather go to prison, than adopt. (I think that happened | in the UK, after they force switched to metric) | Retric wrote: | Keep digging and all the imperial standards are just an | arbitrary conversion from metric at this point. | | 1 ft = exactly 30.48 cm; One pound is exactly 0.45359237 | kilograms as in 0.453592370000000000... kilograms. | mharig wrote: | Not only they might go to prison, they may risk values | and lives of others, too: | | https://usma.org/unit-mixups | hutzlibu wrote: | Well in a general sense, yes, but the particular case I | remember was a (fish?) seller at a local market, so | nothing life endangering. | frankfrankfrank wrote: | Yes, diversity must be stamped out for out corporate | masters. All of humanity must be uniform and there can be | no divergence. | moremetadata wrote: | [dead] | znpy wrote: | Volkswagen has already been caught cheating (on its | emissions) --- not sure I would trust their claims without an | independent third party checking on that. | gambiting wrote: | You can just hop into any diesel Golf/Passat and you'll get | 50+ mpg without even trying. No need for third parties. | thiagocsf wrote: | Mileage != emissions | gambiting wrote: | Sure but the original post was about mileage, no? | tom_ wrote: | Maybe this is for town driving? | | My diesel 3 series (2.9 litre, late 90s design) would get | 8.83 L/100 km (32 mpg UK, 26 mpg US) driving round town, | stopping at traffic lights and averaging <20 mph and never | getting past 3rd gear. This didn't require much care, just a | question of not trying to accelerate too hard at low RPMs or | doing a 0-60 run from every stop. | | Engine technology will presumably have moved on in the past | 25 years, and efficiency will have improved, but you'll still | get crappy fuel economy for stopping and starting all the | time. | tecleandor wrote: | The Cruze is way better than that anyway, you'd need to be in | an excruciating traffic jam to get that low mileage. | | Well, my 12 years old (gas) Honda Fit does +40MPG being very | "pedal happy" and near 50 driving normally, and my dad's 20 | years old (diesel) Citroen Xsara Picasso does around 60MPG | shakow wrote: | > Xsara Picasso does around 60MPG | | 3.9l/100km in a Xsara, really? | tecleandor wrote: | Ouch. When calculating I think I did UK MPGs instead of | US. It does less than 5l/100, and I think it's certified | at 4.4. | londons_explore wrote: | Due to dieselgate, there was a peak in diesel car | efficiency around 2006. Post 2006 diesels get _less_ fuel | efficiency, because they had to tweak the engines to lower | the combustion temperature to reduce NOX emissions. (which | also reduces efficiency). | fnordfnordfnord wrote: | 20 years ago was kind of a sweet spot for diesel automobile | fuel efficiency. Emissions were terrible though. Then they | tried to clean up the tail pipe emissions and lost most of | the efficiency gains. | tecleandor wrote: | Yep, although they're becoming better again. Not that I'm | a diesel apologist, I hate it, but I guess we're used to | smaller and more efficient cars in Europe (even with the | SUV craze) | lilililililili wrote: | [dead] | msravi wrote: | This has the 2011 Honda Fit pegged at between 29-31 mpg. | | https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=nofor | m... | tecleandor wrote: | The European one has a different engine, it's the | 1.5i-VTEC, certified at 4.7l/100km in highway and 5.4 | mixed. | jwr wrote: | I had a BMW series 3. 61mpg is 3.8l/100km and that's... | dreamland. You can probably achieve that in ideal conditions, | driving 50km/h on a highway. | | Very few people check the facts, and the only reliable way to | know yourself is to take notes at the pump: gas pumped vs km | travelled. I did check for a while and the numbers were quite | different :-) | | On a related note, for the VW ID.4, the manufacturer states | 17kWh/100km which is actually achievable (much to my | surprise) in city driving when it isn't cold. My real numbers | are closer to 21kWh/100km. This goes up really quickly if you | exceed 130km/h. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > A normal diesel fueled sedan such as the Chevy Cruze diesel | runs at about 31mpg | | That's not very good, my LPG car runs on average around 25km/l | and around 30km/l on gas, albeit being a 10 years old model. | | Modern diesel cars run on average at over 20km/l, the Citroen | C3 does ~30km/l. | adverbly wrote: | 12700 doesn't include all the diesel engine parts. Also, | electric motors much more efficient. | | Still, your point stands. | leoedin wrote: | The big reason for this is thermodynamics. A conventional | internal combustion engine car has to convert chemical energy | to kinetic energy - the absolute best theoretical efficiency of | this might be 70%, but in practice it's more like 30%. Electric | cars have to pay the same thermodynamic penalty, but they pay | it at the power station (In practice, thanks to renewables, not | all the electricity used to charge a car will come from | hydrocarbons - but let's assume it does for ease of comparison | sakes). It's much easier to build highly efficient hydrocarbon | power stations - typical efficiencies range from 40-60%. | | So when you look at the headline "efficiency" of an electric | car, you need to take that thermodynamic penalty into account | first. | | A modern series hybrid like a Toyota Prius is effectively an | electric vehicle and a gas generator (which means it has the | same efficiency gains due to regenerative braking). That gets | 52 mpg, which is about 493 Wh/km. If you generated the 225 Wh | the Tesla needs in even the most efficient combined cycle gas | turbine powerplant you'd need 375 Wh. Less - but not nearly as | drastic as it first seems. | | Renewables change the picture though - once you have | significant renewable generation the carbon intensity of | electricity starts dropping, which means that remote powerplant | vs local powerplant argument falls apart. That is when the real | power of electric vehicles kicks in - they can take their | energy from anywhere. | heresie-dabord wrote: | > the real power of electric vehicles | | Generation can be from clean sources and is already happening | in some jurisdictions. | | Even if a clean source is not available, the pollution can | best be controlled at the source. In this period of history, | hundreds of millions of people make billions of polluting | trips every day in their communities. | | Although owning _any_ car is the poorest choice of all for | the environment, there are two ecological benefits to driving | a BEV or a PHEV. * better efficiency than | ICE * zero emissions in the case of BEV, zero | emissions *for most trips* in the case of PHEV | MuffinFlavored wrote: | > Renewables change the picture though - once you have | significant renewable generation the carbon intensity of | electricity starts dropping, which means that remote | powerplant vs local powerplant argument falls apart. That is | when the real power of electric vehicles kicks in - they can | take their energy from anywhere. | | How close/far would you say we are as a society on "having | significant renewable generation"? | philipkglass wrote: | I don't know where you live, but in the United States | renewables have recently surpassed nuclear and coal power | as sources of electricity: | | https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55960 | | They're still pretty close to each other right now. | Renewables are at 21%, coal 20%, nuclear 19%. However, | nuclear is flat and coal is declining. Renewables are still | growing rapidly and will widen their lead significantly in | a few more years. See the first embedded chart in the | article, showing output trends since 2010. Also see the | short term forecast at the end of the article: | | "In our March Short-Term Energy Outlook, we forecast the | wind share of the U.S. generation mix will increase from | 11% last year to 12% this year. We forecast that the solar | share will grow to 5% in 2023, up from 4% last year. The | natural gas share of generation is forecast to remain | unchanged from last year (39%); the coal share of | generation is forecast to decline from 20% last year to 17% | in 2023." | 0cf8612b2e1e wrote: | I was curious, and Wikipedia lists 224 active coal plants | in the USA. More amazing was that from 2010 to 2020, 240 | coal plants were closed. | | [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal- | fired_power_sta... | sgt wrote: | Though that makes me think that hybrids have a real future. | Or hydrogen fuel cells. | | Anything that doesn't require charging directly from the grid | all the time, because although parts of the USA and Norway | are ready for that, it's very tricky to get right globally. | | Maybe hybrids like the Prius get to be so efficient that such | cars will have a truly negligible impact on global warming. | pjc50 wrote: | Hybrids that emit carbon will still have a huge effect on | global warming, simply because there are so many cars. | There isn't a huge amount of headroom for efficiency | increases, so you're only going to get anywhere near "net | zero" by charging from a renewable grid nearly all the | time. | R0flcopt3r wrote: | Hybrids almost never emit carbon though. Because they're | almost always running from the battery that you charged | up from the wall before leaving home for your daily | commute. And the daily commute is less, or maybe a little | over the battery range. If it isn't then you have bought | the wrong car, if you goal is carbon neutrality. | | You can use a smaller battery, which means using less | rare materials that are very expensive. There are a lot | of indirect emissions with electric vehicles, and it's | important to look at the big picture. | XorNot wrote: | I could not be more bored by people who go off on the | indirect emissions tangent. Because it _always_ | mysteriously winds up at "so anyway, buy a | vehicle/house/plane/whatever which directly burns fuel | and will thus never be green". | | It's an argument pushed by fossil fuel company's because | it pretends the world is static and unchanging, as though | the energy mix of the electrical grid can't vary, or that | changes in fuel source and process for mining operations | to be cleaner wouldn't drastically effect downstream | users overall emissions profile. | richiebful1 wrote: | It's always been my hope that my state (Kentucky) would | get on board with EV's. A really smart marketer could | court the powerful coal interests in the state and start | selling EV's on the premise that they are powered by coal | here. Eventually the power mix would change to be more | sustainable | leoedin wrote: | That's only true of plug-in hybrids. "Hybrid" just means | a car with an electric and ICE drive train. Most hybrids | aren't plug-in hybrids. They have no ability to charge | their battery except from the engine. | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | right but that's easy to change. | the_third_wave wrote: | As to whether those hybrids have a 'huge effect' on | 'global warming' depends on many factors but assuming the | narrative around climate change - the term 'global | warming' has been swapped for the latter since the | average global temperature has gone down for a number of | years after an earlier steady rise - in relation to the | CO2 hypothesis holds truth the main factor of importance | is the source of the carbon used in the fuel. Fossil | fuels add carbon to the atmosphere while synthetic fuels | made from 'renewable' sources - biomass and direct carbon | capture being the most likely ones - do not. Especially | the latter - captured atmospheric carbon in combination | with hydrogen from ocean-based wind and solar sources - | would be a clearly carbon-neutral synthetic fuel source. | If such a process could be made economically viable it | could also solve the problem with storing hydrogen | produced by those ocean-based sources: | CO2 -> C + O2 2 H2O -> 2 H2 + O2 C + 2 H2 | -> CH4 (methane) | | Theoretically it is simple. Building an economically | viable installation, not so. With the amount of attention | the 'climate crisis' gets this should not be a barrier | given that untold billions of euros are being spent. Take | some of that money which currently goes to nonsensical | political vanity projects and redirect it into a | Manhattan-project style research and development project | with the aim of not just finding some theoretical process | but actually creating working systems which can be | installed and used. The advantage of creating methane is | clear since it enables existing infrastructure to be used | for transport and power production - including ICE- | equipped vehicles. Either create heavier liquid | hydrocarbons using the Fisher-Tropsch [1] process or | convert diesel engines to use methane. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch | _proces... | XorNot wrote: | > the term 'global warming' has been swapped for the | latter since the average global temperature has gone down | for a number of years after an earlier steady rise | | You're just going to throw that out there? You'll cite | the Fischer-Tropsch process, but not "actually global | temperatures are declining"? | | Here[1]. The temperature hasn't gone down. The narrative | hasn't changed from global warming because of this (the | term was in fact dropped because people are idiots and | trying to explain what global temperature is measuring in | terms of energy dynamics in the climate system doesn't | work...). 2022 was the 6th warmest year on record, and | based on all data the overall trend is _up_. | | [1] https://www.noaa.gov/news/2022-was-worlds-6th- | warmest-year-o... | the_third_wave wrote: | You are pointing at a single year, I am pointing at a | trend [1,2]. The trend had been for the average global | temperature to rise up to 2012 to 2016 - depending on | which measurements you look at. After that period the | average global temperature has declined by 0.06degC per | year up to 2022. This change in the trend made the | "global warming" moniker easily attacked "because the | temperature are clearly going down". This is why "climate | change" became the more common term [3]. | | May I suggest a less belligerent/dogmatic attitude when | discussing this subject? If the narrative holds it won't | change the conclusion. If new data shows the narrative to | be false or misleading - e.g. ice core records show the | atmospheric CO2 concentration to _lag_ behind temperature | changes, not _lead_ them, climate sensitivity wrt. CO2 | concentration is low, feedback mechanisms are unclear, | there are far too many fudge factors in the climate | models to make them reliable sources - it will be much | easier to adapt to the new situation. We 're not talking | religious dogma after all but scientific theory, that | which can and should be discussed lest it turns into the | former. | | [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather- | gang/wp/... | | [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why- | did-ear... | | [3] https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate- | change/ | jjoonathan wrote: | https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding- | climate/... | | It's a much longer trend than 2012-2016. I remember 2011, | the last time conservatives were playing the "global | warming has paused" game, but then oops! It returned to | trend. No Ls were acknowledged, of course. | | What do the radiative flux measurements say this time | around? They measure the derivative directly and are | upstream of the most chaotic mixing process. Last time | they said "sorry, heat is still piling up, globe's still | warming." They were correct. What do they say this time? | the_third_wave wrote: | > It's a much longer trend than 2012-2016 | | 2012-2016 is not the period of warming, it is the period | from which the warming trend changed into a cooling | trend. Seen over the last century the warming trend is | far longer, the most recent one starting somewhere in the | beginning of the 70's until the mentioned 2012-2016 | frame. After that a slight cooling period followed, | taking down the temperature by 0.06degC/yr until 2022. | 2022 was another warm year so if 2023 will be warm as | well the cooling trend is most likely broken. These sort- | time variations are not significant when discussing | 'climate' - roughly defined as 'the weather trends over | at least a 30 yr stretch' - but they do control what | makes the news. | | One question: why do you state is is 'conservatives' who | claim that the warming trend was broken? You don't know | whether those people were conservatives nor do I. It does | not make sense - and is extremely counterproductive - to | equate a person's stance on single issues like 'climate | change' with their political affiliation since these | issues should not in any way be connected to political | ideology. If they _are_ connected they are _by | definition_ suspect since ideology trumps objective | reasoning. Either the climate changes - and it does, no | question there - or it does not, independent on whether | you or I vote for whatever party we choose. Allowing | ideology to taint the discussion just turns off a large | part of the populace no matter which ideology it happens | to be. It is just plain stupid for climate change to be a | 'progressive' cause, crime reduction to be a | 'conservative' cause, etc. These issues should be pulled | out of the ideological realm so that they can be | discussed by everyone without accusations of _-isms_ by | 'either' side. | jjoonathan wrote: | Rather than doing chart astrology, do you mind digging up | those radiative flux measurements? | the_third_wave wrote: | When you ask a serious question you can expect a serious | answer. | XorNot wrote: | Wow didn't even wait before busting out "what if CO2 | doesn't cause global warming" and very obviously didn't | read your own links. | | Running the denialist playbook as usual: slip in a | insinuation that the issue has stopped without evidence, | then drop a bunch of articles which don't support it | while continuing to say "what if all the data supported | me?" And then started alluding to a conspiracy with | language choices like "dogma". Throw in some upfront tone | policing because heaven forbid you have to defend your | position vigorously and the recipe is complete. | | Go on: hit me with "climate cycles are natural" and then | lean into how the media just don't talk about the | controversy. | the_third_wave wrote: | Climate cycles _are_ natural [1]. | | Please refrain from using terms like _denialist_ , it | does nothing to help the discourse. Also, that 'bunch of | articles' I sent _does_ support what I said, this being a | break in the rising temperature trend. You seem to want | to hear much more in what was said, why is that? | | As to the 'conspiracy with language choices' I think you | realise that this is no conspiracy but a simple fact - | what used to be called 'global warming' is now called | 'climate change'. | | As to 'tone policing' I'd suggest reading your posts I | replied to. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene#/media/File:Ho | locene_... | jjoonathan wrote: | > denialist, it does nothing to help the discourse | | When one party wins by default, they benefit from | stalemate-seeking tactics. "Just Asking Questions" | unfortunately works very well for this purpose. Dogma | poisons the discourse, yes, but so does accidentally | extending good faith to a bottomless well of bad faith | questions, which has been the conservative playbook on | climate change since forever. The counter-strategy is | dogma. | | In order to have a scientific discussion rather than a | political discussion, we need to know your intentions, | and that's extremely difficult on a pseudoanonymous | internet forum. It sucks, but this is probably how it has | to be. | the_third_wave wrote: | > In order to have a scientific discussion rather than a | political discussion, we need to know your intentions | | The truth, freed from ideology. This will be hard to | achieve given the enormous amounts of money involved on | all sides - from "green new deals" via trillions of EUR | in subsidies to even larger amounts of money on the | fossil-fuel-status-quo side. With politicians who have | made their careers on either portraying themselves as | apostles of Gaia or ensuring the continuous flow of oil, | gas and coal - and thus the continuation of an industry | which more or less defined whole US states and several | countries. | | Just because it is hard - and probably impossible - to | get the actual truth does not mean I want or need to cave | and just follow one of the narratives. Given enough | people looking for the actual truth it may become | possible to reach it and act upon it but it better be | sooner rather than later. | | What is _your_ purpose in asking such leading questions | by the way? Do you agree that an actual _scientific_ | discussion - as opposed to one directed by _The | Science(tm)_ - is the better course? Also, who are the | _we_ who would like to know? I speak for myself, not for | others. Who do _you_ speak for? | jjoonathan wrote: | > The truth, freed from ideology. | | The IPCC reports are one google away. | the_third_wave wrote: | Yes, read them. The scientific reports that is, not the | condensed version presented in the media. If you read | them well you'll find they do not support the climate | doomsday prophecies which are being bandied around. The | only way to use those reports to support those is to use | the long-discredited - by the IPCC itself, mind you - | worst-case scenarios yet it is those which the media and | politicians use to support their doom cries. | | When you're done reading at least the abstracts in the | IPCC reports - but it is worth the time to read the | actual reports themselves - you can also read a few other | sources, e.g. Schellenberger's _Apocalypse Never: Why | Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All_ , Bjorn Lomborg's | _False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us | Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet_ | and Steve Koonin 's _Unsettled: What Climate Science | Tells Us, What It Doesn 't, and Why It Matters_. These | give a far better view over what climate change entails | and how it can be dealt with than the breathless fear- | mongering as seen in the media and as spouted by | politicians. | supernova87a wrote: | by the way, how did you do all those subscript formatting | tricks?? It would be great to know how to post more | advanced things in the comments here. | dspillett wrote: | Assuming you are on desktop/laptop: | | The long-winded way is to use your OS's character map | tool: find the glyph you want there and copy+paste. Under | Windows 10+ there is the emoji keyboard (hit [win]+;) | which also gives access to much more including | super-/sub- script characters, which is a little more | convenient than character map. Presumably other OSs have | similar available too. | | Better is to have support for a compose key sequence. | Usually build in to Linux & similar, you just might have | to find the setting to turn it on and configure what your | compose key is. Under Windows I use | http://wincompose.info/ and there are a couple of similar | tools out there. In any case it is useful for more than | super- and sub-scripts: accented characters & similar | (aaaaecffn), some fractions (1/4,1/2,3/4), other symbols | (deg[?](tm)(r)||--!?!?[?][?]>>%00), and configurable too | so you can make what you use most easiest to access (and | if you are really sad like me you can do something | https://xkcd.com/2583/ to type hallelujah too!). | | On mobile devices a fair few "special" characters are | usually available (though it depends what keyboard you | have installed) via long-press on the right keys of the | virtual keyboard. | the_third_wave wrote: | I use the compose key (which I mapped to Scroll Lock) for | subscript: <compose> + _ + [0-9] | | For superscript I use a dead key, ^: | superscript: ^ + [0-9] | | O0 ... O9 | | O0... O9 | jwilk wrote: | You may like this: | | https://jwilk.github.io/chemiscripts/ | Technotroll wrote: | According to this chart, road transport sector is | responsible for 11.9 % of greenhouse emissions | wordlwide.^1 Could you please expand upon how you define | the huge effect it will have on global warming? Don't you | think it's better to focus on other parts of that pie, | where it's easier to implement widespread savings and | change? | | ^1: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector | comte7092 wrote: | You could pick any part of the pie and make an identical | argument, yet somehow the whole pie has to go away. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Which parts of the pie are that? | vardump wrote: | 11.9% is a pretty huge percentage. If it were like 0.1%, | I might agree with you. | | Imagine you were tight on money and then think about your | grocery store bill. Wouldn't you try to save in all | categories, even though, say meat, was "only" 11.9% of | your total bill? | | Carbon reductions need to be made in every sector. | bluGill wrote: | We are already moving our electric grid to renewables. | Wind and solar are both cheap sources of power, and have | a lot of potential to account for more of the electric | load. Putting electric on renewables, plus switching cars | to EVs (charged by renewables) should eliminate 50% of | that chart - and this is something we can pull off in | less than 20 years. Some of the other 50% is also easy to | switch to battery powered, but they are all small niches | that each need to be worked on separately. (If you are in | one of those niches please think about this!) | KronisLV wrote: | > Don't you think it's better to focus on other parts of | that pie, where it's easier to implement widespread | savings and change? | | I looked at the link and to me transportation does indeed | seem one of the larger sources of emissions. Everything | else seems either very fragmented (lots of entries with | around 2%) or similarly if not more complex - like energy | use in buildings for all of the appliances. | | What am I missing here, what would be easier to address | than the abundance and types of cars and possibly the | lack of proper public transportation? | | I don't think that one can even make the argument that we | should look for easy wins when change is necessary | everywhere, unless we want climate catastrophe - because | of people working against improvements due to their | personal interests, inefficiencies in regulation and | enforcement, as well as any number of other factors. | cogman10 wrote: | We are on a path where EVs can be used as backup | generators. It's fairly easy to imagine that in the near | future you'll be able to use plugged in EVs to avoid brown | outs or general outages. | | https://enphase.com/ev-chargers/bidirectional | seanmcdirmid wrote: | I've stayed in places of the grid before in Asia. No gas | stations for miles around, but they would have solar panels | or a water wheel out back for electricity, if not very | reliable. I imagine EVs would be even better for such | places, just charge them via some local renewable, the | battery deals with the unreliability of the source. | kaliszad wrote: | Hydrogen fuel cells in mass produced vehicles do not have a | future since hydrogen does not actually like to react - you | need a catalyst. And the best ones we have are based on | platinum, which is very rare a expensive. If we produced | any decent quantities of "hydrogen" cars, we would have | such a shortage of platinum we would not be able to | complete them. Of course there are claim this has been | solved but to the best of my knowledge no such catalyst | actually ships in commercial quantities. [0] | | The second reason is that hydrogen is 1/10th the density of | diesel even when liquid (which is as dense as it gets). | Maintaining hydrogen in its liquid form is energy | intensive. Hydrogen tends to leak through the smallest | cracks and also because the atoms are so small tends to | leak even through solid metal. To sustain the high | pressures and degradation by hydrogen you need a very | expensive tanks. You also need to handle the case, when the | car crashes/ catches fire releasing all of the hydrogen | somewhat safely. This tends to be a 6 MW flame upward of | the car. Too bad if it crashed under a bridge or garage. | This is much worse than a burning ICE/ BEV car. | | Hydrogen gas stations have all of the problems with the | tanks as well. That makes them very expensive. Battery | charging stations are somewhat easier - everywhere you have | higher voltage you can build a decent charging station. Big | parking lots can have solar roofs fulfilling a part of the | charging demand and keeping the cars colder in the summer. | | At the same time you don't have any of the advantages of | batteries - such as that you can charge them almost | everywhere or when breaking. Hydrogen cars would need to be | hybrids basically to improve on these, in this regard they | are more similar to classical ICE cars. | | Finally, making hydrogen ecologically and economically is | not that easy in big quantities. In the end, you realize it | is means to a longer operation of the infrastructure of | classical fossil fuel companies. Unrelated to cars, you can | put some hydrogen (up to about 8% it seems) into natural | gas without noticeable change in properties when used for | heating. But you can probably slap a green or at least | "blue" stamp on the solution. In the end, all of this is | just as damaging as the production/ burning of bio diesel/ | gasoline spiked with ethanol. Putting hydrogen into cars | would just make support this fossil fuel agenda without | actually helping the environment much and quite possibly | enable decades of even more damage to the environment and | public health with profits mostly for just a few already | filthy rich people. | | [0] https://www.quora.com/Can-I-create-a-Hydrogen-fuel- | cell-with... | svnt wrote: | It is a sign of the success of the oil industry that this | analysis always takes the cost of electricity generation back | to the source, but assumes that fuel stations pump from a | perfect source of naturally refined/distilled hydrocarbons. | | It is surprisingly difficult to get numbers on how much oil | is used to extract, refine and transport oil. | | The best I found was this: | | https://www.speakev.com/threads/energy-required-to-refine- | oi... | | Does anyone have better numbers? | semi-extrinsic wrote: | I know Equinor publishes quite detailed numbers from their | operations: | | https://sustainability.equinor.com/climate-tables | | The headline figure is maybe to compare 11.4 mill. tonnes | CO2e emissions from "Scope 1 + Scope 2" (direct emissions | from the company plus indirect emissions because they buy | electricity and stuff), versus 243 mill. tonnes CO2e from | Scope 3 (emissions from people burning the hydrocarbons | sold). | | If that figure is correct, you can add 1.6 percent to the | car tailpipe emissions figures to account for production | and refining etc. | | But this is an oil & gas company that tries very hard and | is among the best in the world for minimising emissions | from production and refining. I would not be surprised if | gasoline from US shale oil is more than an order of | magnitude worse. | thfuran wrote: | >EROI values for our most important fuels, liquid and | gaseous petroleum, tend to be relatively high. World oil | and gas has a mean EROI of about 20:1 (n of 36 from 4 | publications) (Fig. 2) (see Lambert et al., 2012 and | Dale, 2010 for references). The EROI for the production | of oil and gas globally by publicly traded companies has | declined from 30:1 in 1995 to about 18:1 in 2006 (Gagnon | et al., 2009). The EROI for discovering oil and gas in | the US has decreased from more than 1000:1 in 1919 to 5:1 | in the 2010s, and for production from about 25:1 in the | 1970s to approximately 10:1 in 2007 (Guilford et al., | 2011). Alternatives to traditional fossil fuels such as | tar sands and oil shale (Lambert et al., 2012) deliver a | lower EROI, having a mean EROI of 4:1 (n of 4 from 4 | publications) and 7:1 (n of 15 from 15 publication) | | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142 | 151... | semi-extrinsic wrote: | So the major difference between your numbers and the ones | I cited, is that EROI is just "energy in versus energy | out" and it does not change favorably if you do carbon | capture or use renewables or whatnot. | | Whereas if you compare CO2 emissions, you can do these | things and in theory get down to zero emissions from | production and refining of gasoline. | nteon wrote: | you are right -- EROI and emissions are different. If you | add in things like carbon capture, emissions go down but | energy-in goes up. Would it make sense to extract and | refine gasoline with net-0 emissions if it took more | energy than you get out in gasoline? _maybe_, but I don't | think its a clear yes! | [deleted] | abdullahkhalids wrote: | ICE cars also have to often go out of their way to the fuel | pump, while most EVs are charged at home/office. | | There must be small impact of that as well to the CO2 | calculations. | abustamam wrote: | EV driver here, I live in an apartment complex with no | charging stations installed. I and many other neighbors | who drive EVs have to go to a charging station to charge. | | On the way to the charging station, we probably pass a | dozen gas stations. | | I love my EV but let's not pretend it's always more | convenient. If you have the opportunity to charge at | home/work then yes it's great, but you're still reliant | on public charging infrastructure if you decide to drive | outside your normal range, and it takes a lot longer to | charge than it takes to fill up a tank of gas, even | considering the speed of Tesla Superchargers. | moron4hire wrote: | I mean, it's like, 50 yards out of the way? You stop at | whatever gas station you're driving past. I don't know | anybody who makes a specific trip to go fuel their car. | rootusrootus wrote: | The existence and popularity of sites like gasbuddy.com | suggests that some number of people are willing to go out | of their way to find the lowest price. I personally know | people who will make a run to Costco for gas, even if | they're not going to go in for groceries, because the | price is good. There are at least a half dozen gas | stations on the way to Costco. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | Half the people driving out of their way to get gas are | bad at math. The other half simply don't assign a dollar | value to their time. | | If your car gets 30 mpg, has a 16 gallon tank (that you | refill at 1/4 tank, so you're buying 12 gallons), and you | drive an extra 5 miles to pay $3.93/gallon instead of | $4.00/gallon, how much did you really save? | | I'll give you a hint: It's less than a nickel. | | Meanwhile, you've probably driven at least 10 minutes | that you didn't need to drive. 10 minutes to save a few | pennies. | | The math only gets worse as the gas prices go up and your | fuel economy goes down. You need a greater delta to make | the drive worth it. | fwungy wrote: | Average diversion for gasoline is a quarter mile. | | Siting a gasoline station is highly strategic. They know | exactly where to put them and how much to charge on the | real estate and vendor sides. | naasking wrote: | > It is surprisingly difficult to get numbers on how much | oil is used to extract, refine and transport oil. | | Not to mention the socialized costs of all the wars, | military spending and human lives spent to secure stable | sources of fossil fuels. If you actually break down the | numbers and applied some basic ethics, I doubt fossil fuels | have been cost competitive for decades. | czbond wrote: | We will still have those same wars after EV's. Oil has | been a good incentive, but let's face it - the U.S. loves | us some wars. | | <snark, i'm totally against military aggression> | msrenee wrote: | We're already looking at the human cost of some of the | components needed for the batteries, like lithium and | cobalt. That's what we'll be fighting wars over after we | exhaust the supply of oil. | rootusrootus wrote: | Lithium is considerably more ubiquitous than crude oil, | however. And cobalt in batteries is already on the | decline, we won't be using it much longer. Heck, most EVs | sold today don't use any cobalt at all. | iknowstuff wrote: | And its recyclable | fwungy wrote: | It's funny how the USA feels like it has to get | militarily involved to guarantee something that the | producers are willing and happy to sell. Even moreso when | you understand that the USA has plenty of oil itself | available. | | It's almost as if they want an excuse for running a | massive military. | jakswa wrote: | It's getting pretty old now (maybe renewables have | progressed) but Union of Concerned Scientists made a solid | attempt: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars- | cradle-grave | jackmott42 wrote: | The average energy required to extract fossil fuel energy | is constantly increasing, as we go after harder and harder | to get oil. It used to be easy enough nobody really paid | attention to that, but now people talk about "EROI" or | energy return on investment, to track the net energy gain | of an operation. | pl90087 wrote: | Most people still have that simplified view that you just | have an oil well and just pump it up. In the US, a | significant portion is extracted with fracking, an | environmentally pretty terrible method for extraction. | cfiggers wrote: | > It is surprisingly difficult to get numbers on how much | oil is used to extract, refine and transport oil. | | Damn, I've never thought about that before. In hindsight | that feels like an obvious thing to consider but this is | the first time I'm aware of that thought entering my brain. | Thank you for provoking the thought. | | What would be the equivalent consideration on the other | side? Would it be something like inquiring into the energy | requirements of creating and maintaining the electrical | grid, especially given the increased load of wide-scale | vehicle electrification, instead of assuming we get that | for free? | jackmott42 wrote: | Yes, people usually call this "Full lifecycle analysis". | It takes about as much electricity (or energy) to refine | a tank of gas as to charge an EV, so there isn't | necessarily an increase in load on the grid by | electrifying transport. However some energy generation | used by refineries that isn't electricity from the grid | would have to get re-arranged. | | Anyway maintaining a more robust grid should be much | cheaper than maintaining thousands of gas stations and | the trucking routes used to keep them filled up. | hebrox wrote: | Don't forget shipping! | | ChatGPT summary: | | In 2019, the world seaborne trade volume reached about | 11.08 billion tons. Out of this, crude oil, oil products, | and gas accounted for approximately 32.5% (3.6 billion | tons) of the total volume. Coal made up another 8.4% (935 | million tons). In total, energy products represented | around 40.9% of the global seaborne trade volume. | | It's important to note that these figures are from 2019, | and the percentages may have changed since then due to | various factors, including evolving global energy | markets, fluctuations in demand, and the transition to | renewable energy sources. The percentage may also vary | depending on how you define "energy products." | | Sources: https://unctad.org/webflyer/review-maritime- | transport-2020 | dclowd9901 wrote: | It's not something we often consider because, again, the | energy density of carbon fuels _is a couple of order of | magnitudes higher_ then batteries. It seems trivial | because a fuel hauling truck is an _absolutely immense_ | source of energy compared to the energy it consumes to | move. | Noughmad wrote: | Not when compared to a literal metal wire. | saalweachter wrote: | This _does_ come up a lot ... for ethanol production. How | much fuel is used to produce ethanol is constantly | discussed, with some people claiming it is barely break- | even or even energy-negative. | | But yeah, no one then goes on to give equivalent numbers | for petroleum. | 0cf8612b2e1e wrote: | Always have to note that ethanol production from corn has | dubious energy payoff. Switchgrass is definitely energy | positive, but lacks a strong lobbying group to provoke | similar investment and development. | davemp wrote: | > It is a sign of the success of the oil industry that this | analysis always takes the cost of electricity generation | back to the source, but assumes that fuel stations pump | from a perfect source of naturally refined/distilled | hydrocarbons. | | It's not like renewable energy doesn't take | resources/energy to produce as well. It's just borderline | impossible to get real numbers because you'd pretty much | need perfect information on the supply chains. | | Not saying that renewables don't still win in such a | comparison. | Noughmad wrote: | This is exactly what gets me every time some German | "institute" publishes a study how electric cars pollute | more than gas cars. They count everything that goes into | producing electricity, but never what goes into extracting, | refining and transporting gasoline. | asdajksah2123 wrote: | Extracting, transporting, refining oil costs a lot of | energy. And that's before we get into the entire military | infrastructure that has been built up simply to ensure the | safe extraction and transportation of oil around the world. | hn8305823 wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment | photochemsyn wrote: | It's a path-dependent calculation, not a state-dependent | calculation, so the numbers are all over the map. Take two | cases: | | (1) Alberta tar sands production, which relies on imports | of natural gas to melt and process the tar sand into a | crude oil equivalent, called syncrude. If the syncrude is | shipped to San Francisco Bay for refining at Chevron's | Richmond Refinery, then you have to tag on the shipping | fuel used, the gas used in the refinery, and finally the | tanker fuel used to move the fuel to a gas station in San | Francisco. Finding all these numbers is not easy, it's | often proprietary, but you can find that a lot of natural | gas is used at refineries (bulk numbers): | | https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm | | (2) Sweet light crude from a pressurized reservoir that's | refined a few miles away from the oil field and used in a | nearby city. | | The end-product, refined gasoline, has the same state | property (energy density) regardless of how it was | manufactured, but that's irrelevant for getting the energy | that it cost to make it. I imagine the spread can be pretty | wide indeed, as the above examples show. | hguant wrote: | My understanding is that a lot of natural gas is used at | refineries because, for so long, it was effectively | "free" - there was a limited market for it and it was a | byproduct of refining the stuff you wanted (light and | heavy oils). | zamnos wrote: | > the absolute best theoretical efficiency of this might be | 70% | | I fell down a rabbit hole and found this link, which gives | 46% for the theoretical limit for the efficiency of the | internal combustion engine. | | https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98966/maximum- | th... | rkangel wrote: | It's a different metric but it is generally accepted that | F1 cars have reached an overall thermal efficiency of 50%, | which is cool. This is taking into account energy recovery | from kinetic (regenerative braking) and thermal sources | (from the turbo). | zamnos wrote: | KERS is neat and all, but factoring that into ICE engine | efficiency seems a bit like cheating, since there's now | also 2 MJ battery on board F1 cars. | littlestymaar wrote: | note that this is true for spark ignition engines, but not | all ICE, diesel engines can reach higher efficiency and | there are even real diesel engines with almost 50% | efficiency[1], obviously not in cars though. | | [1]: https://engineerine.com/meet-wartsila-31-worlds-most- | efficie... | osigurdson wrote: | Most power generation facilities are natural gas fired, | using large aero derivitive gas turbine engines | (essentially the same engine that is in the 747 - LM6000 vs | CF6 for example) with a combined cycle steam turbine to | capture the energy from excess heat. This arrangement has a | thermodynamic efficiency of 60%. Even with electrical | transmission losses, the efficiency is still far better | (1.7X) than having the power plant located under the hood | of the car. | zamnos wrote: | Not to mention, policing one large facility for | compliance with emissions is much easier than trying to | monitor every single one of millions of cars on the road. | Consultant32452 wrote: | It's much easier to regulate millions of nobodies with no | power than it is to regulate a single wealthy donor. | osigurdson wrote: | Even with a car, you aren't necessarily regulating | millions of individuals - primarily just manufacturers. I | suppose there is the odd case where "old joe" removed his | catalytic converter and is polluting more than others but | that is probably rare. | | I don't get your point on centralization however - more | efficient but less robust (just like in software). | pitaj wrote: | Also, methane produces less carbon for the same amount of | energy as larger hydrocarbons like gasoline and diesel. | snitty wrote: | >It's much easier to build highly efficient hydrocarbon power | stations - typical efficiencies range from 40-60%. | | Just to expound on this. Power stations turn fuel to heat, | and heat to electricity via steam turbines. | | In ICE cars, that heat is the main loss of power. Whole | systems in cars are built to get rid of that excess heat in | the engine. | derethanhausen wrote: | The Prius' efficiency comes from much much more than | regenerative braking. Part is a focus on good aero and low | weight, like many electric cars. But most is from leveraging | the electric motors to allow the engine to run at max thermal | efficiency (probably a touch above your 30% figure) at nearly | all times. | | ICEs are most efficient under medium-low RPMs and high load. | The electric motors can sustain low speed cruising, letting | the engine shut off entirely if it wouldn't be well utilized, | and also fill in for high torque demand to keep engine power | output lower. | marcosdumay wrote: | > A conventional internal combustion engine car has to | convert chemical energy to kinetic energy - the absolute best | theoretical efficiency of this might be 70% | | You mean thermal energy? | | Both cars are converting chemical energy to kinetic. The | theoretical maximum for this is 100%. But one uses a thermal | intermediate step, that reduces that maximum. | walrus01 wrote: | > A modern series hybrid like a Toyota Prius is effectively | an electric vehicle and a gas generator (which means it has | the same efficiency gains due to regenerative braking). That | gets 52 mpg, which is about 493 Wh/km. | | Wait, does a new prius or something like a hyundai ioniq | (also 52-53 mpg) not have the internal combustion engine | mechanically coupled to the transmission and drive wheels | anymore? | twic wrote: | Some do, some don't. As an example the Nissan Qashqai is | available as a conventional hybrid, with mechanical | transmission, and an "e-power" version, where the engine | only drives a generator: | | https://www.nissan.co.uk/range/e-power-cars.html | masklinn wrote: | They do, but also don't, the Prius and the Ioniq are | series-parallel hybrid so the ICE plugs into a power | splitter which can feed into both the mechanical | transmission and a generator. | rimliu wrote: | I've got Civic e:hev, which has kind of similar setup. ICE | does drive wheels in some situations (high speed, much | power required), but mostly is just EV. It does not even | have a gearbox, so there is only direct coupling from ICE | to the wheels that can be engaged or disengaged (this is | done automatically, you have no manual control over this). | | I really like this setup, because it gives economy, but | also a range and I don't need to worry about where to | charge the car. | sidewndr46 wrote: | Isn't Honda the dark horse of hybrids? I remember riding | in one and the owner explained that apparently Honda | chose a hybrid architecture that was different that | everyone else. The car's transition from electric to ICE | was quite noticeable. | kube-system wrote: | Honda has had two systems, the earlier "IMA" system which | is a mild parallel hybrid. And the current "E-drive" | system which is primarily a series hybrid. Series hybrids | are actually pretty old tech -- it's how diesel | locomotives works. The Chevy Volt also works just about | the same way. | walrus01 wrote: | Also how azipods work on some very large ships, the | diesel locomotive concept scaled up even more, sometimes | with big gas turbine for power generation. | numpad0 wrote: | No, it's just reframing. Prius is still that transverse | mounted engine going into the torque splitter gear with two | motors sandwiching it. | rootusrootus wrote: | Nope, still parallel hybrids. The closest we've gotten to a | true series hybrid was the Chevy Volt, but even then, it | was technically a parallel hybrid. | | I also take issue with anyone calling a hybrid 'effectively | an electric vehicle.' That is only true for PHEVs. A | regular hybrid still gets exactly 100% of it's energy from | gasoline. | jjtheblunt wrote: | Does regenerative braking count as renewable energy? It's | clearly absent from internal combustion (diesel or not) | acidburnNSA wrote: | Lord I hope not. It helps with efficiency, but is no more | renewable than carrying a rock upstairs and throwing it out | a window onto some kind of generator. | antibasilisk wrote: | >The big reason for this is thermodynamics. | | Yes it usually is | Twirrim wrote: | One of the big sources of electricity generation here is | hydroelectric, so I've been joking with my kids for a while | that we have a water powered car. The first time I brought it | up sparked a fun conversation as they wanted to understand | how water makes electricity, and then started rabbit-holing | on how magnets are involved in everything. | masklinn wrote: | > the absolute best theoretical efficiency of this might be | 70% | | While ICE are heat engines with a theoretical limit of 70%, | they're more specialised subsets described by the Otto (gas) | and Diesel (... diesel) cycles, which have a much lower | theoretical maximum. | | Just plugging the temperature ranges into Carnot will give | you a Carnot limit of 50%, and using Otto will yield 46% | (https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/98992). | | Add in that gas engines are not spherical and into a vacuum | (losses and delays) and you're in the 30s. | qikInNdOutReply wrote: | Wrap the combustion engine with a heatpump to a small steam | engine? | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | The added weight and complexity would probably negate any | benefit gained. | osigurdson wrote: | It isn't precisely "wrapped", but this is essentially how | all natural gas fired generation facilities work. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant | greesil wrote: | I think the parent is referring to harvesting some of the | waste heat | lilililililili wrote: | [dead] | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | ICE converts chemical energy to mechanical energy but an | electric vehicle still has to convert electrical energy to | mechanical energy. | robnado wrote: | The battery converts from chemical energy to electrical | energy and the motor of the vehicle converts from | electrical to mechanical energy. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Ah. My point was more that there are losses assocated | with these conversions and you can't move all of it to | the upstream power plant. ICE vehicles burn fuel and | create rotational mechanical energy which other than gear | reductions doesn't require conversion. Electric does | chemical -> electrical and then electrical -> mechanical | with losses at each step here right? | nayuki wrote: | Note how almost every diesel locomotive has electrical | generators and motors as an intermediate step because | they decided that it's cheaper, more efficient, and/or | lighter than having a huge gearbox. Electrification has | some real advantages. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive , https:/ | /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel%E2%80%93electric_powert... | rootusrootus wrote: | Efficiency is important, but I'd bet the diesel electric | design was mostly about simplification of the drivetrain | and performance. An electric motor develops maximum | torque at zero RPM and is very easy to modulate the | amount of torque applied. A reciprocating engine has a | minimum speed, so getting an extremely heavy train moving | from a dead stop is tricky. Remember how old steam | locomotives tend to spin the wheels regularly as they get | up to speed. | sidewndr46 wrote: | Not entirely true, most transmissions have a system of | torque converters and clutches. The torque converters | convert rotational energy into fluid pressure to gain a | kind of mechanical advantage. The clutches slip and make | heat, usually to allow other parts of the transmission to | interact without destroying gears. | | Once you get to cruising speed the transmission usually | engages something called a "lockup" that bypass all that | to get as close to the 100% number for energy transfer as | possible. | rcxdude wrote: | This is a much more efficient process: somewhere between 75 | and 95% efficiency, depending on the motor and the exact | speed and torque (and of course they try to optimise for | the best efficiency around the common operating points) | TylerE wrote: | Regen braking will do that. I suspect it'd be a much closer | competition at, say, 80mph stead state. | 2rsf wrote: | Regen braking is 60-70% efficient, and it also limits your | ability to free roll (let go of the gas and let the car use | its inertia) for example going downhill or on level highways. | Polestar for example recommends to lower the OPD sensitivity | on highways to increase efficiency. | mrob wrote: | Gasoline internal combustion engines run at about 30% | efficiency. Diesel does somewhat better at about 40% for car | size engines, and about 50% for the really big ones. Electric | motors easily exceed 90% efficiency. The EV wins even without | regenerative breaking, even accounting for the losses in the | batteries. | HPsquared wrote: | It's somewhat matched if the electricity is generated by | combustion. Even then, if the power is generated using an | efficient cycle (e.g. CCGT) the EV still tends to come out | ahead. | fpoling wrote: | 40% diesel efficiency is for optimal conditions, like | steady cruise on a motorway. For practical driving it is | less than 25%. | | What is also missing here is that it takes 20-30% of energy | to refine diesel or gasoline plus there is oil extraction | cost. Accounting for that electrical car produces less CO2 | when electricity comes from a modern coal plant than a | diesel car. | zelos wrote: | There are theoretical maximum efficiencies for thermodynamic | cycles in combustion engines. I believe the limit in the | diesel cycle is around 40%. Petrol engines are lower still. | Keyframe wrote: | For a normal, new car, anything above 6l/100km for that size of | a car (and usually around 5) is something's wrong with the car. | That's more than twice the efficiency of described one from | 1976. | 5ersi wrote: | Compare that to liquid hydrogen at 33000 Wh/kg. | | The problem is that at that point liquid hydrogen already spent | 70% of the energy stored in it (80% efficiency of electrolysis | * 40% liquefying efficiency) . | vivegi wrote: | I have a fundamental question though. Will EVs (Li battery | based) achieve the holy grail of IC engine replacement? | | Earth's Lithium deposits.................. 88,000,000,000 | Kilograms [2], [3] | | @25% Viable for mining.................... 22,000,000,000 | Kilograms [2], [3] | | Tesla S battery weight.................... 540 Kilograms per | car [4] | | Lithium weight per Tesla S battery........ 63 Kilograms per | battery [4] | | Max Tesla S (global) production possible.. 349,206,349 units | (See Edit below) | | Number of automobiles running in the USA.. 102,000,000 units | [1] | | Number of automobiles running in the World 1,500,000,000 units | [5] | | So, even if we theoretically assume that the earth's entire | known Li reserves are used for EV usage, we cannot replace more | than 25% of the currently running cars in the world. | | So, we have a bigger problem ahead of us (over the next decade) | that will act as an opposing force against EV penetration and | replacement of the IC engine. | | Solutions possibly lie in exploring other battery chemistries | while improving the efficiency of Li extraction. | | Edit: As some of the comments below point out, the Li content | in a Tesla Model S battery is approx. 63 Kg. That makes the Max | Tesla S (production) possible to 349 million units. So, in | theory, one could replace all IC engines in automobiles plying | in the USA. That then leaves the rest of the world. So, the | problem still remains. | | [1]: | https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2021/m... | | [2]: | https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42417327/li... | | [3]: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals- | information-c... | | [4]: https://blog.evbox.com/ev-battery-weight | | [5]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/the-number-of-cars- | wo... | paconbork wrote: | But only a small portion of the battery's weight is lithium, | right? This older source has a 453 kg Tesla battery as | containing 63 kg of lithium, for example: | https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials- | tesla... | naasking wrote: | > I have a fundamental question though. Will EVs (Li battery | based) achieve the holy grail of IC engine replacement? | | Even if they couldn't, why would you limit your analysis to | Li-based batteries? It's basic economics that when a resource | becomes rarer, it becomes more costly and alternatives spring | up. EVs with Sodium batteries are already on the market in | China. This whole Lithium fear mongering is such a red | herring. | vivegi wrote: | I agree it cannot be dependent only on Li. That is why I | had stated in the last line of my post | | > Solutions possibly lie in exploring other battery | chemistries while improving the efficiency of Li | extraction. | tryptophan wrote: | Known Earth's Lithium deposits =/= Earth's Lithium Deposits | epistasis wrote: | And in fact this number changed by large amounts in the | last decade, even before the current boom of the 2020s. | | Remember peak oil, which was a big panic of some in the | 2000s? It turns out that peak production didn't happen | overall, but if you look at the original set of "known | resources", the peak oil predictions were spot on. Yet we | didn't experience huge oil supply shortages because huge | expenditures into new fracking tech enables far more | resources to be accessed. | | We have always loved in a complete abundance of lithium, so | we never bothered to look for more resources. Now that we | need more, we will find it. It's not a particularly rare | element. | vel0city wrote: | > Owing to continuing exploration, identified lithium | resources _have increased substantially_... | | Emphasis added from your [3]. | | Ever think maybe your 88,000,000,000 Kilograms number isn't | actually all the lithium on the planet, and _maybe_ there 's | more undiscovered under the ground? Or do you think all the | lithium on the planet was discovered in 2023, and now there | won't be any more reserves found? | | Strange how this maximum amount of lithium reserves keeps | magically growing year over year over year over year. I | wonder how it magically appears. | vivegi wrote: | Yes, exploration and discovery of new deposits continues. | _Everything else remaining constant_ , the 88M tonnes (99M | tonnes in the latest USGS report in [3]) will need to go up | by orders of magnitude to get the 25% to 100% (if that is | ever the goal). | vel0city wrote: | The US went from 700,000 to over 12,000,000 from the 90s | to today. In places where we've actually really started | to look, we've found orders of magnitude more. I wonder | how much more we'll find when we actually go looking for | it elsewhere. | mjgant wrote: | Is 540KG per car just Lithium? | | A quick google returned this ~63KG | | https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials- | tesla.... | tpm wrote: | There are like 200 billion tons of lithium in seawater. If we | really need it, there will be ways to extract it | economically. | breischl wrote: | You didn't cite sources for the critical pieces of that (the | first three numbers). You also assumed that the battery is | 100% lithium, which is obviously wrong. A random Googling | says closer to 62kg. And now I'm tired of bothering to fact | check you. | | I'm also going to say that all the car companies, battery | companies, and governments in the world probably took six | seconds to do basic math before investing trillions of | dollars in it. | | https://blog.evbox.com/ev-battery-weight | vivegi wrote: | The 62kg is a valid point. I have revised the calculation | and added the citations. The problem still remains (at the | global level). | vel0city wrote: | > The problem still remains | | It doesn't, because that 88,000,000,000 is a lower bound | amount of lithium on the planet not an upper bound. | | If I count all the apples on the apple tree in my yard, I | haven't counted all the apples on the planet. Only the | applies I know about. There's probably still more apple | trees out there! | | That 88,000,000,000 figure also doesn't count _any_ | lithium in the oceans. Taking even a small fraction from | there would make that 88,000,000,000 seem tiny. | breischl wrote: | Sibling comment is a good point. Also there are lots of | other battery chemistries available that use less, or no, | lithium. Or approaches burning hydrogen, or ammonia, or | methane. | | More broadly, this is a class of complaint that you can't | see every detail of path and the destination from the | very beginning of the road. The solution to that isn't to | stand around and complain about it, but _start moving | towards the destination_. | pl90087 wrote: | One of the problems ahead of you personally is the insight | that a Li battery is not 100% lithium. It's a fraction of | that. | xxs wrote: | >runs at about 31mpg, which is 13.2 km/l or 15.3 km/kg | | The measurements outside North America are reciprocal, e.g. | 7.7L/100km (which is awfully inefficient for a diesel, normally | it should be around 5L) | | So converting gallon to liter, and mile to kilometer is the | wrong way to present it. | | As for the efficiency in general - of course electric engines | have a very high efficiency (in the 90s), unlikely diesel which | can barely hit 35%. | mabbo wrote: | This delightful article presents a fun reason why the L/100km | unit is better: https://what-if.xkcd.com/11/ | oblio wrote: | That's about the same efficiency as every modern EV. This is | not Tesla specific. | | Electric motors are very efficient, regenerative braking helps, | EVs are designed to be super aerodynamic, etc. | bb123 wrote: | That is not quite true - you're right that it is not Tesla | specific but many current EVs are far less efficient: | https://insideevs.com/news/567087/bev-epa-efficiency- | compari... | | Particularly German made ones, for some reason. | oblio wrote: | For US models :-) | speedgoose wrote: | In real world tests, most EVs are far from Tesla's | efficiency. Some are very far, a few are as good. | laweijfmvo wrote: | Any reason why non-EVs couldn't get the same aero | improvements as EVs? | rootusrootus wrote: | Physically, no, but practically there is little incentive. | ICEVs are so inefficient to begin with that small | improvements don't really move the needle much on fueling | cost like they do with EVs. Combined with the fact that you | necessarily have to carry a great deal more energy with you | in an ICEV anyway. | brianwawok wrote: | Compare the mpge of different cars. Tesla tends to win even | between EVs. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Engineering first results. | rootusrootus wrote: | I would use something other than mpge. Tesla advertises | numbers you won't see in the real world, more so than some | other manufacturers (Porsche is an example that goes the | opposite direction and under-promises). The EPA test isn't | anywhere close to as objective as many people believe, | there are ways to game it. | | I do wish my Model 3 LR would actually go 358 miles on a | charge, that's for sure, but it would have to get even | lower Wh/mi than Tesla claims on the Monroney sticker. I | suppose that's not the most egregious lie on Tesla's web | site, however. | oblio wrote: | https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption- | electr... | codethief wrote: | > 31mpg | | mpg = miles per gallon | strangescript wrote: | Its almost like electric cars are cleaner, more efficient and | better for the environment. Telsa's are god tier level of | engineering under the hood. (Maybe not so much fit and finish). | The only reason the gov't isn't buying these for everyone is | because Tesla disrupted deeply entrenched companies and people | don't like Elon. | qikInNdOutReply wrote: | So, how about we apologize in public to the engineers who said | no to radar, cause boy oh boy would that one have eaten | battery, which would need additional batteries, which would | have torrn into the car rocket equation ? | dx034 wrote: | 225 Wh/km is even high for most routes and cars. Unless you | drive fast on motorways or in cold climate, it's often easy to | get to 150 Wh/km (15 kwh/100km as often displayed). | thebigspacefuck wrote: | Isn't this what the MPGe rating tells you? | tecleandor wrote: | 31mpg is not very efficient. Lots of current diesel engines in | Europe are certified at 50+MPG. There's even a Car and Driver | test where, with very efficient (and boring) driving you can | get 70+MPG out of a Diesel Cruze... | | https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15341744/the-prince-of-pa... | bb123 wrote: | The U.S. uses a Gallon measurement which is about 20% smaller | than an international one so you have to factor that in. | tecleandor wrote: | That Car&Driver article is written in California, so I | would have guessed it's US gallons, but now you're making | me doubt :D | maccard wrote: | 31mpg is pretty low, even for us gallons. The most sold l car | in the UK is (shockingly) the nissan qashqai. They get about | 48mpg in imperial gallons which is about 40mpg for the US. | jillesvangurp wrote: | Not only that. The more important conclusion is that actually | ICE cars are stupendously inefficient. | | All that extra energy ICE cars carry isn't actually being put | to use very well. They don't have more powerful engines. They | don't have more torque. They don't have more acceleration. And | even their range isn't that much better. You can of course get | models that take something like 100+ liters of petrol. But the | per liter performance only gets worse if you do that (heavier | cars are less efficient). | | The reality is that yes, fuel is very energy dense but sadly | most of that isn't transformed into motion when you use it. You | are instead making lots of noise (vibrations) and heat. Both | are actually bad for your car. So, you use most of the energy | to wear out your car faster. The more powerful the car, the | less efficient they are. And the faster they break down. | holri wrote: | What about charging efficiency? | 2rsf wrote: | DC is better then AC and both depends on how much the battery | is already charged, temperature of the battery, the | infrastructure (charging cables for example). The range is | somewhere from low 80's for low amperage AC charging on cold | weather using a low quality granny charger cable to high 90's | for a warm battery on a dedicated high power DC charger. | | This of course doesn't include losses in transmission from | the power station and in electricity production. | xxs wrote: | Charging goes like this: - AC converted to | DC (with power factor correction, usually means AC stepped | up 1st) - DC converted back to AC (but higher | voltage) and MUCH higher frequency - AC transformed | to lower AC voltage (still higher frequence) - AC | rectified to DC (filtered and stabilized), DC voltage lower | | If there is DC, the very 1st part can be omitted. | cyberax wrote: | That's not true. Tesla works like this: 1. You have a | high-voltage DC bus that is basically connected to all | battery modules. Modules have individual BMS modules and | can connect/disconnect to that bus. 2. If you're doing | fast charging, the charger connects to that bus directly | (you can hear contactors closing), matches the voltage | and pushes the current. 3. If you're doing AC slow | charging, the charging module on the Tesla simply boosts | the voltage to the bus level via a PWM-based power | supply. | | That's it. A pretty simple system. | 2rsf wrote: | Wait! what? why? as part of the DC to DC conversion? how | does it affect efficiency? | clouddrover wrote: | > _and the Tesla Model S can do a rated 650km on a single | charge_ | | It's better to use real world highway range which is 300 miles | (482 km) in a Model S: | | https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/ | [deleted] | littlestymaar wrote: | > which is ~27% of the energy required to run a normal car! | | This is because you're not comparing the same things: going | from thermal energy to mechanical energy has a much lower | efficiency than going from electricity to mechanical energy. | But that electricity has to come from somewhere, and most of | the losses happen at the electricity generation place instead | of in the car. | | > It just wouldn't have been possible to run cars on batteries | without this efficiency bump. | | Electric motor have always been far more efficient than ICE | ones, even in the 19th. In fact, the difference was even | bigger, because combustion engine sucked hard back then, | whereas electric engine didn't make as much progress as | combustion engine ones (that doesn't mean that they didn't make | progress, they did, but there's far less of a difference | between an electric engine of 1920 and the one in a Tesla, than | between an ICE engine then and now). | cyberax wrote: | Sorry, but this is BS. Modern electric engines in Tesla Model | 3 use high-speed power transistors to precisely modulate the | magnetic field. Back in 1920 all you could do was a collector | plate with brushes. | | The difference is like the difference between carburetor | engines and direct fuel injection. | osigurdson wrote: | This is definitely not an apples-to-apples comparison. With an | EV the ball is already at the top of the hill and merely needs | to be rolled down, with an ICE car, the ball has to be pushed | up the hill first. The power plant does all of the heavy | lifting for the EV. | | Not a mark against EVs of course - it kind of just makes sense. | I'm sure future generations will laugh that every vehicle used | to have its own on-board power generation facility. It's too | bad the dumb power-plant-under-hood way is still so much | cheaper than the EV approach of course. | dd36 wrote: | It's not cheaper. | osigurdson wrote: | If EVs were cheaper, everyone would own one. | rlue wrote: | Maybe I missed something, but seems very weird to compare kg of | diesel fuel to kg of battery. The posted article's figure of | 272Wh/kg is for battery capacity, not energy yield from source | fuel. | plantain wrote: | 225Wh/km is very high. I see more like 140-160Wh/km driving | 80-100km/h on a M3. | kwhitefoot wrote: | At a continuous 80km/h on a level road in the summer I can | get down to 160Wh/km even in my 2015 S 70D. I have a friend | with a Kia Eniro and he gets similar numbers to you most of | the time. | [deleted] | tyfon wrote: | The 272 Wh/kg is at cell level not pack level which the Tesla | weight refers to. In my X has about 92 kWh usable energy when | new and it uses around 225 Wh/km at 120 km/h and 170 at 90. | | The 3 and Y is even more efficient, mostly due to size. But it | has a smaller battery, I can get about 69 kWh out of my AWD 3 | after losses and it hovers around 170-180 Wh/km at 120 km/h and | 130-140 at 90. | ed_balls wrote: | > ~27% of the energy required to run a normal car | | It would be slightly worse in colder climates. I wish car | manufactures would allow for easy installation for range | extenders in the front trunk. I'd be a great source of heat for | the heat pump. Range anxiety would be gone. No carbon tax since | it would be an aftermarket solution. | | It seems Mazda MX-30 r-ev is the only thing you can buy. | kwhitefoot wrote: | > Range anxiety would be gone. | | Range anxiety is an affliction more common among those who do | not drive an EV than those who do. | mdp2021 wrote: | > _is an affliction more common among_ | | That is a tautology... "Those who weigh the downside more | remain in the alternative option." What did you want to | mean? | vel0city wrote: | Their point was that a number of people who have range | anxiety are those who haven't actually looked at what the | impact of changing to an EV would actually be. Which, for | a lot of people, wouldn't be nearly as much as they would | think. | | A lot of people with range anxiety probably use an EV | with little to no impact in their driving habits other | than plugging in when they get home. But they're so | concerned with "what if's" that rarely ever come up in | their lives. "But what if I suddenly need to drive across | the country taking only back country roads and avoiding | all highways across the furthest north roads in the | coldest of winter?? Can't do that in an EV!" | | The most common reactions I get to people asking about my | EV are along the lines of "But how do you charge it? | Don't you have to wait at public chargers all the time? | It must be so challenging driving an EV with so many | broken chargers all the time! You must have to wait so | long all the time for all that charging, its so slow!" | Which is quite strange, because the vast majority of | charging sessions most EVs would probably experience are | plugging in at their home entirely negating these | concerns. | | For a lot of those people asking me those questions | (often friends and family), I _know_ they 'd be able to | replace a car with an EV and have only positive impacts | other than the costs of buying a new car (something they | do on some schedule regularly). But the talking heads on | the TV tell them EVs == slow, unreliable, expensive | charging so clearly all EV owners must be dealing with | largely unavailable, unreliable, expensive, slow charging | all the time. When in reality I spend more time pumping | gas in my ICE than I do waiting on my EV to charge, I've | encountered more broken gas pumps than charging | dispensers in the last year, and it costs me almost 10x | less in energy cost than my ICE per mile. | bertil wrote: | During the introduction to a speech by J. B. Straubel, the | presenter said his mentor's motivations were that 1% of the | energy in the gas tank was moving the passenger, 12% the car, | and the rest was lost. | | We should measure efficiency based on that number. | mnw21cam wrote: | Maths check - 31mpg is 11km/l. (31mi/gal * 1.60934mi/km / | 4.54609l/gal) | | Having said that, my 13-year-old normal sized diesel car does | 60mpg in normal use. | msravi wrote: | A US gallon is 3.785 liters... | 2000UltraDeluxe wrote: | There are many cars from 00-05 and with emission levels that | are relatively low; if one is to make a somewhat absurd | suggestion to prove a point, I'd suggest many smaller petrol | and dieselbcars would be cleaner than an EV _if_ the EV was | charged with 100% coal power. | | Luckily, most people don't charge their teslas with coal | power. | xxs wrote: | Yeah but nobody actually uses kilometers per liter. | sylware wrote: | The real news is "mass production" of those high-end of batterise | I guess. | dhruvbird wrote: | How combustible are these batteries compared to the standard | lower density ones, and if one of them catches fire, how | easy/hard is it for the fire department to get it under control? | 0xDEF wrote: | Chinese manufacturers will increasingly dominate innovation in | their respective fields. | | Manufacturing and innovation is inherently intervened and the | West's decision to outsource manufacturing has stagnated our | ability to innovate in many fields. | raindear wrote: | A competition to self driving cars? If urban flight is possible | in 10 years, will people need self driving cars? | seandoe wrote: | oh god, could you imagine some of the car drivers you see | flying a _plane_ -- above your house? Self-flying would be the | only way to go. | kylehotchkiss wrote: | Wow 2 day iPhone battery life. Let's go! | grishka wrote: | No, it would definitely be an iPhone that is twice as thin and | still lasts a single day. | ninkendo wrote: | I'd take that. I charge every night anyway, 2 day battery | life doesn't mean much to me. I want my iPhone to be lighter, | it's too damned heavy right now. | w10-1 wrote: | No article, headline, or comment about batteries should omit the | proven lifecycle. | | Unless, of course, the battery manufacturer has a very long | warranty and the resources to back it up. | | Otherwise: noise :) | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | Can some energy be recuperated on descent, blades turning in | reverse? | pbmonster wrote: | Sure, completely possible in theory. | | That would of course be equivalent of deploying an air brake | almost the size of the rotor/propeller disk. So descend rates | would be pretty fast, and aerodynamic stability not necessarily | guaranteed. | | In the end you probably have to design the aircraft for it. | Might be worth it for applications like sky-diving planes or | heli-sking helicopters. | lxe wrote: | Finally, an actual battery breakthrough! Most "new battery" media | has been mostly fluff for decades. | prai1SE wrote: | I like the headline, specifically aimed at aviation. This might | definitely turn some heads. While this is still strong on the | marketing with few details, it shows the intent to electrify air | travel at some point, which is a good thing IMO. Also might put | pressure on SAF, which themselves have a long way to go. | | Also, this could be interesting already for existing small and/or | short range airplanes like Pipistrel's training aircraft or | Eviation's Alice. I don't know the energy density of their | current batteries, but this could give them a boost very soon. | Animats wrote: | It's not a new battery chemistry, though. It's still lithium-ion. | Does something prevent thermal runaway with this? | beanjuice wrote: | While it does use lithium it doesn't necessarily have to use | the 'same chemistry' as existing technologies. Beyond that, | they haven't (or maybe never will) release fully the technology | so we can not know. | ianburrell wrote: | It uses a solid-state electrolyte which is probably big reason | for capacity increase. It is the flammable liquid electrolyte | that causes fires in lithium ion batteries. Solid-state | electrolyte shouldn't be flammable, that is main reason people | have been researching solid-state electrolytes. | rvz wrote: | Finally. A proper engineering breakthrough deservedly getting | recognition here. | | Unlike the mass in-flux of low effort GPT-laden BS promoted by | the generative AI grifters. | | We need more of these foundational breakthroughs and less from | the generative AI hype squad. | sanderjd wrote: | I feel like this is a misunderstanding of HN's niche... For | most of my time here the majority of articles have been about | social media and other consumer web and mobile apps. Which | makes sense because that's what Silicon Valley has been up to | and this is an SV rag. It's nice that there are also lots of | nerds here who are interested in other, frankly way more | interesting, technologies so we get a good number of articles | about those too. But your criticism just strikes me as odd. | Generative AI is much more interesting and fundamentally new | than the stuff I was reading about here a decade ago when | Instagram filters were the new hotness... | jonplackett wrote: | Another reason we will all rely on China... | Tade0 wrote: | Apparently they're in turn relying on a US company named | Group14: | | https://group14.technology/en/news/group14-enters-production... | | CATL is a spinoff from ATL, so it's possible that there's some | cross-pollination going on. | | This company is fascinating to me, because until recently they | had _no_ media presence. | dx034 wrote: | I believe car manufacturers are already big in battery | production, for them it's as crucial as ICE production was | before. It takes time to ramp up but I'd expect battery tech to | be a key component that large manufacturers will want to have | in house. But it could be one of the first key technologies | where Chinese companies are a few years ahead of European and | American companies. | MagicMoonlight wrote: | Screw electric planes, the real benefit of this is that we can | finally achieve long range electric airships | bagels wrote: | "CATL has announced a new "condensed" battery with 500 Wh/kg | which it says will go into mass production this year" | | This is a lot more credible than most of the battery stories, | because CATL is already producing a ton of batteries, lending | them some credibility. | | This is a little under 2x the density of current batteries. | scythe wrote: | >This is a little under 2x the density of [the best] current | batteries. | | [brackets mine] | | But the _best_ batteries contain unacceptably high levels of | cobalt. Practical EV batteries are made with nickel or iron, | maybe vanadium someday, and have lower density than pure | LiCoO2. | | >CATL is already producing a ton of batteries, lending them | some credibility. | | A couple of years ago CATL claimed that they had figured out | how to make durable sodium-ion batteries with a ferricyanide | cathode, to be released in 2023. The press cheered about the | end of lithium dependence. | | Yesterday, not long before this announcement, it was revealed | that CATL's "sodium-ion" battery contains lithium: | | https://cnevpost.com/2023/04/20/catl-byd-sodium-ion-batterie... | | _" CATL and BYD's sodium-ion batteries to be put into mass | production will both be a mix of sodium-ion and lithium-ion | batteries, according to local media."_ | | [sad trombone noises] | jackmott42 wrote: | My EV with cobalt in the batteries seemed practical to me. | | And nothing wrong with having some lithium in their battery. | The important thing is how much cheaper is it. | scythe wrote: | Your EV probably has the usual NMC or NCA chemistries which | have around 10-20% cobalt. I don't know of any car that | uses a 100% LiCoO2 cathode -- it's just not practical. | diggernet wrote: | While I agree that the blurb you quote strongly implies that | the sodium-ion batteries contain lithium, I don't think the | article itself really says that. | | > CATL and BYD's sodium-ion batteries will both be carried in | mass-produced vehicles within the year, and they [the vehicle | battery packs] will both be a mix of sodium-ion and lithium- | ion batteries, according to a report by local media 36kr | today. | | By my reading of that, and the rest of the article, it's | saying that the _vehicle battery_ will be assembled from of a | mix of sodium-ion and lithium-ion _battery cells_ , not that | the sodium-ion cells contain lithium. | | > With its pioneering AB battery system integration | technology, CATL has achieved a mix of sodium ion and lithium | ion, allowing them to complement each other and thus increase | the energy density of the battery system, Huang said at the | time. | | Basically, a "battery system" using only sodium-ion cells | does not yet have enough energy density to support their | range targets, so they are using a mix of cell types to | improve the energy density and increase the vehicle range. | elevaet wrote: | > battery with 500 Wh/kg | | Wow, that's amazing, creeping up towards the energy density of | gasoline at around 1200 Wh/kg | | Of course you don't have to lug around the spent gasoline after | you've used it, but that's really the problem too innit? | VBprogrammer wrote: | I wonder what it does to the other axises: cost, volumetric | density, resilience and charging speed etc. | oblio wrote: | That's a problem for shipping and aviation. | | It's still a problem, but batteries can already do a lot of | heavy lifting (and pulling). | adwn wrote: | You're forgetting to take into account that an electric | drivetrain (power electronics and electric motor) is _several | times_ more efficient than a gasoline drivetrain (ICE motor | and gearbox). It also weighs less. | pawelk wrote: | Isn't it break even point, considering >60% of the gasoline | energy is dissipated as heat, and <40% to make the wheels | spin? | AdrianB1 wrote: | No, the number for gasoline is missing one zero; with the | correct number, gasoline is still 6-8 times more energy | dense per kg. | pawelk wrote: | Thanks. I should have fact-checked the number before | doing the math :) | ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: | Various theoretical energy densities of batteries and | gasoline: lead acid 123 | Wh/kg lithium ion 250 Wh/kg | zinc-oxygen 1,084 Wh/kg sodium-oxygen | 1,605 Wh/kg lithium-sulfur 2,600 Wh/kg | magnesium-oxygen 6,800 Wh/kg aluminium-oxygen | 8,100 Wh/kg lithium-air 11,140 Wh/kg | gasoline 12,700 Wh/kg | | from 2022, Asad A. Naqvi et. al., _Aprotic lithium air | batteries with oxygen-selective membranes_ , Table 1, | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40243-021-00205-w | yread wrote: | And Uranium-235 about 1GWh/kg | | EDIT: this is for nuclear fuel enriched to 3% in a normal | (not breeder) reactor 35000 MJ per 10g pellet | https://whatisnuclear.com/energy-density.html Only a tiny | fraction of the total energy is actually used | travisporter wrote: | Whoa so... 100kwh is 40mg! 3grains of sand to run a Tesla | | https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=100kwh%2F%282.5+gwh% | 2Fk... | m3kw9 wrote: | Except a lot more is released at once so it will | accelerate like a jet engine on every stop sign | ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: | Uranium-235 is around 24 GWh/kg [1] (24,000,000,000 Wh). | | [1] https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ | the_duke wrote: | You need to account for all the weight required to turn | the radiation into electricity. | | That'll make the numbers ... a bit different. | mrtesthah wrote: | Not necessarily: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric | _ge... | philipkglass wrote: | The GPHS RTG contains 7.8 kilograms of plutonium 238 but | masses 57 kg in total. It also generates only 300 watts | from that 57 kg package: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPHS-RTG | | You'd need about 3 metric tons of them to power one Model | 3 cruising at highway speed (assuming ~16 kilowatts | continuous power draw). | stephen_g wrote: | Not to mention that you have to mine and refine a couple | of tonnes of ore for every kilogram of refined uranium. | oblio wrote: | I wonder how close to mass production those intermediary | technologies are. | | Bumping the energy density closer to something like | lithium-sulfur would probably make 95% of ICE-based | technology scrap heap tech. | DesiLurker wrote: | its worse actually for ICE because you are probably only | accounting for engine efficiency but there are also | transmission losses to the wheel. Further all the 3000 or | so component of ICE weight fair bit too. I have not seen | any analysis on combine energy to the wheel/Kg comparison | between ICE & EVs but I'd bet it gets significantly worse | for IC cars even at 500wh/Kg. | ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: | Iron-air batteries (1,200 Wh/kg), and in general metal- | air [1], might bring a surprise after 2024: December | 2022, "Form Energy will site first American iron-air | battery manufacturing plant in Weirton, West Virginia" | [2]. | | [1] 2017, Yanguang Li, Jun Lu, _Metal-Air Batteries: Will | They Be the Future Electrochemical Energy Storage Device | of Choice?_ | https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.7b00119 | Betteridge's law of headlines answers "no", but good | overview. | | [2] https://formenergy.com/west-virginia-governor-jim- | justice-an... | londons_explore wrote: | The various "-air" batteries tend to have major | downsides... | | They tend to get heavier as they discharge. They usually | aren't rechargeable (or if they are, only a few times or | with much lower energy densities). They tend to self- | discharge within a few weeks of non-use. | flavius29663 wrote: | and I think they can't output as much current like the | current batteries too. | ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: | Yes, there are downsides, as always in engineering, it's | a matter of managing the compromises for the current | implementation and researching better solutions for the | next iteration. | ketzu wrote: | > gasoline at around 1200 Wh/kg | | Aren't you missing a 0 there? Gasonline should be at 12 | kWh/kg instead of 1.2. | | [1] https://chemistry.beloit.edu/edetc/SlideShow/slides/energ | y/d... | jackmott42 wrote: | You do have to lug the battery around even when depleted but | electric motors are ~3 times more efficient than combustion | engines, so if you got to energy density parity you would | still have a much lighter car, all the time. | rippercushions wrote: | Yes, it would seem preferable to reuse the same energy | storage over and over again, as opposed to digging it out of | the ground at huge expense, shipping it across the world, and | then spreading it out into the environment as a cloud of | toxic particles after one use. | bsaul wrote: | your analogy doesn't old : ice cars reuse their tank. | | it's not nitpicking, electricity production has a cost. | It's just a different cycle of production / pollution. | sixQuarks wrote: | Yes, I'm always skeptical whenever battery breakthroughs are | announced because it's easy to make a breakthrough in the lab, | but almost impossible to transition it into mass production. | | This has a lot of potential coming from CATL. However, there is | no mention of price. I'm betting this is going to be very | expensive. | gibolt wrote: | Current _mass produced_ batteries, which tend to hover around | 260-300 Wh /kg. Higher density (but still under 500) are | available, but in far smaller quantities for a very high cost. | | The exciting part of this announcement is that if anyone can | scale manufacturing, it is them. | oriel wrote: | Really it is encouraging for advancement areas like this. | | Reminds me of the "revolutionary battery checklist": | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28025930 | | edit: removed the paste of the checklist because of spam. | dzhiurgis wrote: | "No week goes by without a revolutionary battery | technology" | | - Engadget, circa 2010 | jackmott42 wrote: | And that is why batteries have become so much better now | than they were 20 years ago. | usrusr wrote: | Have they? Other than lithium based batteries getting | cheaper per kilogram so that year by year, more battery | use cases have switched over from inherently worse | chemistries? Even just ten years ago, eneloop were still | the hot thing for many applications outside of laptops, | mobile phones and the odd Tesla (ten years ago was when | Model S was still the fresh new successor to the | converted Lotus) | rootusrootus wrote: | Is eneloop not still very much a thing? Maybe not the | brand, but the technology. The vast, vast majority of | consumer devices using standardized battery sizes are AA | or AAA, and that means NiMH. To go lithium means 18650, | and I don't really see much of that happening outside | flashlights and other niche products. | Osiris wrote: | There are many companies making rechargeable lithium | batteries in AA and AAA form factors. I have a few dozen | I use for my door lock and Xbox controllers. | usrusr wrote: | Sure, if a device uses the form factor, then eneloop or | the same approach by a different brand are even more | ahead of pre-eneloop NiMH than they used to be: all the | high-current use cases that were the weak spot of eneloop | have long migrated to lithium-based. | | But AA and AAA are increasingly rare not only because of | price but also because of the ubiquity of USB charging, | and because of the way the powerbanks that USB charging | enabled weakened the "carrying spares" argument for AA a | lot. | | In essence: yes, the vast majority of consumer devices | using standardized battery sizes continue to be AA or AAA | (if we can agree in ignoring the ubiquitous CR2032). But | costumer devices that use interchangeable standard size | batteries have become super niche, at least outside a few | fields where you expect years on a set of batteries. To | go lithium means going fixed battery (unless you identify | with the performance flashlight subculture, again | something I very much agree with) | s5300 wrote: | Why does going lithium mean 18650? 14500s have always | existed. I think there's even smaller than that but I | haven't personally checked in a bit. | adoos wrote: | Form factor smaller than 1865 with energy dense formula | is rare. Chinese made LFP but only a handful of mfgs make | them anymore. So size doesn't matter, but it basically | matters :D | magila wrote: | Eh, not really. Most "battery breakthrough!" press | releases are about some new exotic chemistry while most | mass produced battery improvements in the last 20 years | have come from incremental improvements to existing | chemistries and better packaging. | gibolt wrote: | While this is true, a tiny start-up with big claims is | different from the world's largest battery manufacturer | (CATL) already spooling up production with the intent to | scale. | notJim wrote: | Cheap cynicism is fun, but Wh/kg has been steadily | increasing since the '90s | https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/eternally-five- | years... | walrus01 wrote: | What battery pack that I can buy right now is 300Wh/kg? | Sincerely curious because that's 50Wh/kg above what people | are using in some very expensive UAVs. | cogman10 wrote: | It'll take time (maybe significant) before these batteries | are available for direct purchase. The problem is demand | current outstrips supply. Every high capacity battery | already claimed, in tesla's case for their cars and grid | storage applications. | | CATL pushing this sort of capacity, though, is great news. | It certainly will accelerate availability. | 05 wrote: | Nobody is using 50Wh/kg in UAVs; even 150C racing drone | batteries are higher energy density (~135Wh/kg for Tattu | R-line V5 1200mAh 6s, 195grams) | LeifCarrotson wrote: | Very expensive UAVs use lithium polymer battery packs with | continuous discharge rates on the order of 80C and above. | To get higher energy density, look for lithium ion battery | packs or lipo packs that reduce discharge rates to trade | off for long-term storage capacity. | | Compare to the discharge rate vs. energy density tradeoffs | of plug-in hybrid EVs versus battery-only EVs: A Chevy Volt | PHeV has a 16 kWh pack and 87 kW motor, a Chevy Bolt has a | 65 kWh pack and not a 65/16x87=350 kW motor but 149 kW. | ilyt wrote: | UAVs also have higher current requirement, and that means | more weight "wasted" for chonkier electrodes Car batteries | aren't pulling 50C worth of current | frosted-flakes wrote: | Don't car batteries also have very high current | requirements? Turning over an engine takes an enormous | amount of power. | mwint wrote: | GP is probably talking about EV main batteries, not the | lead-acid 12v accessory/starter batteries. | falcolas wrote: | Most batteries that run starters are not energy dense, | they're typically standard lead acid batteries. | | FWIW, to provide the 225 amps (for a V8 starter motor) a | Tesla car battery would only need a discharge capability | of 3C (1C being around 80 amps), which is within its | rated capabilities. This is also for batteries which | provide higher voltages, so I'm vastly overestimating the | C rate required. | | C is the unit for charge/discharge rates, and is based | off the capacity of the battery. | gambiting wrote: | Sure but it's not about starter motors - these batteries | power 400kW motors, that's a _lot_ of power. | rootusrootus wrote: | That's why how much power an EV has is closely related to | the size of the battery. 400kW from a 75kWh battery is a | little over 5C. | saltcured wrote: | Traditional ICE starter batteries are optimized for this | cold-cranking power rating, but they only have to deliver | this for a matter of seconds before being recharged. They | are not designed to deliver this continuously nor to ever | be operated at low states of charge. | | Conversely, a BEV traction battery has to support a wider | range of loads at any charge state between its minimum | and maximum charge levels, in order to have decent | driving range. Like a starter motor, the BEV is not going | to sustain high power output for very long, since a car | only takes seconds to accelerate to legal road speeds. | After that, it requires continuous output at lower power | levels to maintain a cruising speed. | | Even with lead-acid batteries, there are regular starter | batteries and then there are deep-cycle batteries which | have far less cold cranking amps but more durability when | depleted to low charge states before being recharged. | | The low density of lead-acid batteries is what makes them | unsuitable for mobile applications. They might have 30-50 | Wh/kg while various lithium ions might be 100-300 Wh/kg. | And now this announcement is talking about 500 Wh/kg so | 10x the best lead-acid batteries... | bagels wrote: | Buy a Tesla Model Y and you'll have just under 300. | rdez6173 wrote: | Amprius has 400+Wh/kg that are commercially available. I'm | sure they ain't cheap, but the tech exists. | | https://amprius.com/products/ | | Edit: well, I'm a dummy and OP said mass-produced. Sorry. | ejiblabahaba wrote: | Based on Google's specs[0], the GMF5Z battery in the Pixel | 7 pro is 18.96 Wh and 65 g, which is around 292 Wh/kg. | | [0] https://support.google.com/product- | documentation/answer/9682... | baybal2 wrote: | Battery people keep comparing apples, and oranges. | | Battery pack energy density, battery, single cell, | cathode, and their rated, nominal, and absolute capacity | are all different things. | | A single cell will always have > absolute capacity than | the capacity at which the safety limiter will cut-off | charging, and that will be > than the capacity to which | BMS will charge/discharge the cell in daily use. | | It may well be possible for a cathode material to excel | in a small pouch cell, but have terrible thermals | preventing its use in larger cells. | chrismorgan wrote: | And the final sentence: | | > _What makes CATL's announcement this week truly | groundbreaking is that the condensed battery will go into mass | production this year._ | Moldoteck wrote: | wow that's really cool, taking into account all | shortages/crisis/war, it's really fast | legohead wrote: | My litmus test for battery/solar stories is: can you buy it? If | not, consider it bullshit. | | At least these guys are announcing production. | justin_oaks wrote: | This is why I generally skip over any "breakthrough" | science/tech stories on HN. | | News articles on breakthrough discoveries are mostly bullshit | and even when they aren't, most of the time they don't affect | my life in the slightest because the tech is impractical or | expensive. | | It may be interesting to read about science discoveries, but | I don't want to take the time to sort out the bullshit from | what's real just to find out that the breakthrough is | irrelevant to me and society at large. | lanstin wrote: | what is your time horizon? not commercialized today == | bullshit? | | i like these sorts of stories because they have prepared me | a bit for some of amazing technology changes i have seen | over past decades. by the time i can by an iphone i was at | least expecting it. when email hacking stories started | appearing in politics, i already knew the details. the | first time i bought an electric car was not the first time | i had thought about the issues of range and charge speed | and so on. | | surely not everything that looks promising becomes popular, | but that is also useful information, to me, a person whose | job is building/helping to build novel systems. | dang wrote: | Ok, we'll use that as the title above. Thanks! | baq wrote: | My plan to buy an EV in the next five years may be realistic | after all. Happy! | redleader55 wrote: | Even if we get this high energy density, I'm skeptical about | its utility/impact. Right now we are barely able to mine | enough lithium for our current batteries, which are used for | phones and a few (percent-wise) EVs. As far as I know, and | please correct me, we need to increase production by at least | 8x for 5-10 rare earth elements in order for everyone to use | EVs. Where are these extra rare minerals going to come from? | brookst wrote: | It won't solve the whole problem, but as battery-powered | goods sell higher volumes and then age out, hopefully | recycling will close some of that gap. | qdog wrote: | lifepo4 doesn't require any fancy materials but lithium, | less energy dense at the moment, but also doesn't degrade | as fast. Panasonic is currently producing ~260Wh/kg | batteries for Tesla, so much of the mass market EVs will | likely end up with those types of batteries. Looks like | lithium production needs to go about 3x at current demand | growth, but if cell density goes up, maybe less? | Unfortunately this article does seem to be about the li-ion | battery tech, but at leas you will need less materials for | the same energy. | jliptzin wrote: | What is stopping you now? | Akronymus wrote: | You may not have a choice in the matter as more and more | countries are thinking of/implementing ICE bans in the near | future. | 0xy wrote: | They're unlikely to succeed because if the massive tax on | poor people (ICE bans) actually gets implemented, all of | the poor people who are forced to buy an unaffordable EV | will vote for populists promising to unwind the bans. | goodpoint wrote: | > massive tax on poor people (ICE bans) | | Don't blame EV and or the environment for this. Car | culture in the US created unsustainable cities and | destroyed public transportation. | | Car ownership itself has always been a regressive tax. | jaystraw wrote: | ICEs also supplement power grids and enable agriculture. | The car is not the centerpiece of fossil fuels helping | the poor | missingdays wrote: | Not all countries are car-centric as USA | rootusrootus wrote: | That's objectively true because it's an absolute. Most | advanced nations are pretty much car-dependent, however. | HopenHeyHi wrote: | People don't always manage to vote their interests even | if/when they manage to rationally identify what those | are. Welcome to politics. | nicoburns wrote: | They're only banning sales of new EVs in the short term, | and poor people don't buy new cars anyway. By the time | they are buying EVs, they'll be much cheaper. | j16sdiz wrote: | I doubt this. | | The manufacturer are pushing subscription-base model. | Used electric car won't become cheap | bluGill wrote: | I doubt that. They are trying the subscription model, but | used car drivers are more price sensitive and are likely | to not fall for it. If the car doesn't have a lifetime | subscription included used car drivers will soon get the | word out don't buy that car. Car manufactures depend on | their cars having a good resale value - people who buy | new cars tend to trade them in every 3 years, and that | only works out because the car has value to someone else. | | It will take time for this to work out in the market. BMW | is small enough to trick people, but the large car makers | are not. | nicoburns wrote: | Manufacturers are also pushing this for ICE cars, so | that's not really a differentiation point between ICEs | and electric. Hopefully we will get legislation to tame | this trend for cars and other goods. | mavhc wrote: | When I bought my used EV there were 2 options: Leaf or | Zoe. As a high percentage of Zoe's had rented batteries, | and the websites didn't have a filter for that, I didn't | even bother test driving one. | scire wrote: | You missed out - they're giving away the batteries for | almost nothing now to get rid of the lease. Mine was | manufactured in 2011 (!) and is still at 93% of its | original 22 kWh rated capacity after doing 90.000km, | which is amazing compared to a Leaf. | wcoenen wrote: | The cheap EVs aren't here yet, but the technology has the | potential to eventually become cheaper than ICE. 30% of | EV cost is currently in the battery, and this will drop. | rob74 wrote: | This! I mean, we saw the same with computing: the first | PCs cost thousands of dollars, but by the start of the | nineties they were much more affordable already. Mostly | because of technology advances and mass production, but | of course also because of moving chip/board production to | cheaper countries. Same with mobile phones, smartphones, | laptops etc. etc. | zirgs wrote: | PCs still cost thousands of dollars. If you are | interested in AI/machine learning then $2k is the bare | minimum. | 76SlashDolphin wrote: | Nah, a GTX 1060 6GB for $100 + any 10-year old i5/i7 is | still surprisingly capable for messing about with ML. | It's not fast but it gets the job done. Also, getting | free compute for messing around in, say, Google Cloud is | still pretty easy. If you get to the point where those 2 | options become a bottleneck, you're probably informed | enough to find work in the field and afford something | nicer. | bluGill wrote: | People interested in AI/machine learning are a small | niche. Your AI/machine learning computer is about as | interesting to most people as large agriculture sprayer | is to your average car buyer. | wahern wrote: | At least in the U.S., poor people buy used cars, while | existing and proposed ICE bans effect new car sales. Any | real economic effect will be delayed until after the ban, | and in any event they'll still be buying used cars. I | suppose used EVs might end up costing more, but they | might end up costing less. Also, the immediate effect of | bans might actually be to create a glut of cheap, used | ICE cars. | | None of that implies less risk of a populist backlash, | though; not for any class of 'mericans, rich or poor. | Loughla wrote: | At least in the US, poor people used to but used cars, | until the used car market tanked in 2021 or so. Now they | buy new, but finance for 84+ months. | doetoe wrote: | Isn't it populist to call this a tax on poor people? | otabdeveloper4 wrote: | It's not populist to call things what they really are. | earthscienceman wrote: | You know how I know you aren't poor? You think anyone in | the bottom quartile will buy a new car. This is hardly a | regressive policy. It directly targets the wealthier | populations. | | That said, in the interest of honest debate, it will | shift the used car market prices significantly initially | until supply of used EVs spins up. Although this is very | secondary. | AtlasBarfed wrote: | Partly the use market exists in ICE because there isn't | really a cheap new ICE, but with stuff like sodium ions | and the fundamental simplicity of the EV drivetrain, what | I think is going to happen is that you're going to get a | much wider range of electric cars that will suit a lot | more modes of transportation and people won't have to use | old ICE Used cars to get around. | | I think it's going to happen is essentially you're going | to get like a $10,000 new EV you can buy that's going to | be cheaper to use energywise/ fuel-wise than a clunker | ice. | | I think the driver this will be the Chinese / India | markets where you have basically two to three billion | people that will want cars at that price point and that | stuff will eventually make its way into the US | geysersam wrote: | It's less populist and more a talking point. It's the | perfect cover. "We can't stop allowing the rich to | destroy the climate because we care so much about poor | people." | | In '35 it's doubtful ICE will be cheaper than EV anyway | (look at price development over last decade...) Banning | ICE will speed up this development. | | Climate change will disproportionately affect people who | are already vulnerable. | | Tax carbon emissions and use the money to provide good | affordable alternatives (public transportation) for | people who don't afford an EV today. | zip1234 wrote: | The very poorest don't even drive and are also | disproportionately impacted by pollution from driving. | The strata above that buys used cars. | rootusrootus wrote: | The poorest folks I know are driving used Bolts. Money | talks. Aside from the recent pandemic-fueled car price | bubble, compliance EVs were really cheap on the used | market. | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | Poor people drive buses, not cars. | lilililililili wrote: | [dead] | thecopy wrote: | This might be true in USA where society have built itself | to be almost fully dependent on cars. As a non-american: | I have not owned a car in 10 years. You are not forced to | have to own a car by some force of nature. | bluGill wrote: | You don't state where you live, but odds are good your | country is mostly car dependent. Sure transit is useful | for a few (10%) of people who live in the city, but if | you look at the numbers in almost every country cars are | the vast majority of transport if the country is rich | enough to afford them. If the country isn't that rich you | will see other things, but as they become richer they | become car dependent. | rootusrootus wrote: | For what it's worth, you might find this list handy the | next time you find yourself in a discussion about car | dependence and how it varies across the world. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicl | es_... | asdfman123 wrote: | > You are not forced to have to own a car | | Well, no, but | | > society have built itself to be almost fully dependent | on cars | matsemann wrote: | In much of the world, owning a car at all puts you above | "poor people". While owning a car is sadly needed in some | parts of the world to get to work or even the stores | (US..), it's a massive financial burden for most people. | If you care for poor people, thinking about how people | can go about their daily lives without spending thousands | of dollars each year on owning a car would be the way to | go. | asdfman123 wrote: | If a comment on hackernews seems like it's only written | about the US, then it probably is. | bluGill wrote: | If you can afford a car you are not poor. In the US (and | Europe) there are almost no poor people. What we call | poor are still middle class by world standards. | nicoburns wrote: | > If you can afford a car you are not poor | | I'm not sure I agree with this. In many parts of the US | or Europe, you could easily be in a position where you | can afford a car (and need one for work), but cannot | afford housing. It's true that you might well still be | well off by world standards (a car roof is still a roof), | but I think I'd require "food, clean water, clothing and | reliable shelter" to be a bare minimum for "not poor". | adrianmonk wrote: | This is getting away from the relevant definition of | poor. The person above was talking about how people will | vote, so what matters here is whether they're poor | relative to other voters within their own country. | censor_me wrote: | [dead] | loeg wrote: | Almost no one is banning existing ICE vehicles on the road; | just sales of new ICE models. | klooney wrote: | Sure, but how long do the gas stations last? | loeg wrote: | This is not responsive to my comment, which is about ICE | _bans_. | paganel wrote: | We do have a choice because, on paper, we do have a choice | in choosing those countries' politicians. I know I'll never | give my vote to a politician keen on banning gasoline cars. | | It's sadly also true that the technocrats actually taking | those decisions are a lot less directly accountable, but | nothing that a second "yellow vests" movement won't be able | to fix. | solarengineer wrote: | Could you help us understand why you would like to keep | buying gasoline cars? | | (Edit: I see that you are being down voted. Perhaps | elaborating on your desire to continue to be able to buy | gasoline cars might help clarify your position better) | nickpp wrote: | Some people like freedom of choice, I guess. Like in a | democracy, where you can vote whatever candidate you | like, except here is with your wallet. Others like | dictatures. | goodpoint wrote: | ICE produce proven carcinogenic pollutants. | | Your freedom to intoxicate other people goes against | their freedom to remain unharmed. | | (Not to mention noise, environmental damage, geopolitical | risks surrounding oil... all well proven stuff) | nickpp wrote: | Oh, I am no fan of ICE engines, at all. Hate them, | personally. | | But I know how harmful heavy handed-mandates can be. I | have seen the damage such mandates have already made in | other instances with voters being then easily recruited | and radicalized by populist politicians. | | This is a delicate issue, already highly politicized and | deeply hypocritical for both sides. Completely curtailing | people's freedoms is not the way to approach it, if you | want to change anything. | ahahahahah wrote: | It's wild to imagine that people would widely violently | protest against such a change. Like, I find it pretty | amusing to look back at the old news broadcasts of people | objecting to allowing women in bars or disallowing drunk | driving or requiring cars to come with seatbelts, but | those all just feel like they're from a completely | different time. If people in this day will espouse | similarly intelligent positions, it'll be so interesting. | Moldoteck wrote: | I guess the problem is electric cars aren't cheap, even | in SH market and public transport in some parts of europe | and us just sucks. For example I can totally see banning | selling ice cars in netherlands, sweeden, norway, israel | and other regions with good transportation and richer | people, but banning them in us, italy, greece, romania | and other similar states (either because they're poor or | public transport is bad) is a hard sell | dalyons wrote: | They will become cheap though. As manufacturers move | downmarket and the used Ev market grows. Maybe even | cheaper than gas in the end - simpler, more reliable etc | cinquemb wrote: | If it was cheaper _now_ for people to buy EV over ICE | upfront (externalities be damned because "loin des yeux | loin du couer" [not like most people buying EV now give a | damn about the supply chain for the minerals that go into | the batteries...]), there would be very little push back. | It's really not that difficult to understand. | matsemann wrote: | Why is it so important for you to be able to pollute a | bit more when commuting? | serf wrote: | Why is it so important to plant goal posts where parent | doesn't? | | Some people like to have the freedom to choose between | things, it isn't about trying to be some kind of villain. | matsemann wrote: | Then explain how polluting and making lots of noise is | freedom? Is speed limits imposing on your freedom to | drive as fast as you want? Seat belt laws imposing on | your freedom to have your kids unsecured in the car? I | seriously don't understand this mindset. | atq2119 wrote: | Of course it's about freedom. | | What some people don't want to hear is that their freedom | _must_ be limited where it impacts other people. Nobody | is alone in the world. | lilililililili wrote: | [dead] | vixen99 wrote: | Important also to consider the degree to which we choose | (while improving our own environment) to get others to | pollute on our behalf and suffer the consequences - as in | the extensive environmental damage caused by lithium and | cobalt mining. This is not an argument against EV or | renewables by any means but let's ensure we maintain a | realistic assessment of all pros and cons. Up to 70% of | cobalt is produced in the Congo where up to 200,000 | people work for around $3 a day. This is a good wage | locally which conveniently translates to an excellent | price for us in the West to enjoy clean air cities. | | https://earth.org/lithium-and-cobalt-mining/ | matsemann wrote: | Yup, best would be to get rid of the car dependence. Make | walk-able cities for people, not cities designed for | cars. | mdp2021 wrote: | People do not necessarily live in cities. | mdp2021 wrote: | First of all, the poster was writing about the legal | elimination of an option, which is does not fit such | reduction. | | Some people value the qualities that the current (pun | happened) alternatives do not offer: they are inadequate | for some use cases. This includes long travel and | refuelling in minutes. | | Furthermore, since societies are now suffering an | epidemic of lunacy, electric cars can be extreme noise | pollutants, because insane manufacturers and users have | turned them into a loud cacophonic concert - I have seen | them. They can be unbearable. | | They also seem to be internet connected in a staggering | amount of cases, and many refuse to drive "a smartphone | with wheels", or more explicitly a madness with uselessly | installed security holes and privacy compromisers. This | is especially relevant for The Car, the device that was | built for deliverance - "our way to escape", as Karl | Kraus said. | thelastgallon wrote: | > electric cars can be extreme noise pollutants | | walk, bike and horse are better solutions for noise, not | ICE cars. Ban all cars? | mdp2021 wrote: | No: ban stupidity. | | Solutions are chosen for the balance in cost, risks and | benefits. Noisy but useful, within boundaries, ok. (Note: | some of us are bothered already by motorways miles away | when in otherwise isolated woodlands - but we are aware | that traffic somehow must flow, and know that we have to | select more distant places.) | | Electric cars are becoming a massive threat in terms of | noise pollution because people have become dumb and | passive - cannot perceive and cannot react. The issue is | not intrinsic in the technology, but it is part of | reality: opportunity for madness + latent madness - | disaster. | | > _not ICE cars_ | | You do not seem to understand: the noise some fools put | into electric vehicles is completely different. As in, | "not a hum but brass" - where "hum" can be annoying and | "brass" will surely be. See my other post nearby. | matsemann wrote: | > _Furthermore, since societies are now suffering an | epidemic of lunacy, electric cars can be extreme noise | pollutants, because insane manufacturers and users have | turned them into a loud cacophonic concert - I have seen | them. They can be unbearable._ | | Well, isn't it then peoples choice to do that? Or do you | instead argue for a ban of EVs? I don't get this point. | | I've never heard an electric car making more noise than | the road noise. Which of course is annoying in itself | going at high speeds, but still less than an ICE. What | you're describing is absolutely not something of the | ordinary. ICEs revving their engine in residential | streets, however... | mdp2021 wrote: | > _Well, isn 't it then peoples choice to do that?_ | | No, you cannot have any freedom to be uselessly | bothersome. That is basic in social rules. If you are | missing that evidence, it is because societies have | become extremely lax (especially in practical and mental | effort. It's called a downfall). | | > _making more noise than the road noise_ | | The topical noise is that which comes from the | additional, artificial noises that are placed to warn the | surrounding beings of the traffic, as a consequence of | the fact that the vehicle would be less noisy because of | the absence of the engine. | | In a normal car you have the "natural" mechanical noises | (hopefully muffled), whereas the lunatics have placed in | a number of models a broadcast background sound that you | could - if you never heard it - be assimilated to the | starting sounds of operating systems in the nineties. | Only, permanent during the running of the vehicle. The | new noise is not "grey" as it was, but textured, like a | chord of synthetic strings. | | So, the prospect is of having streets full of running | loudspeakers shouting their own unnatural chords. Which | also means that even if you decided to live in an | isolated spot of land you should not remain less then a | few miles away from any street, if legislation and good | un-common sense will not intervene. | | > _I 've never heard_ | | I have heard the scream from least two models from | stellantis (probably from the same project); I am | informed that the Bayern and others have researched sound | textures of their own to promote the brand. I also have | information that producers have contacted agencies to | produce ringtones for their brand. Moreover, I have seen | some implement beeps during parking operations - so your | city will sound like a giant construction site. | | -- | | Update: some passed by and left a silent note. Confirming | the root point! The downfall is restricting people's | freedom practically and creates a problem with freedom | deontically. | mpreda wrote: | I on the other hand, I applaud the politicians who had | the guts to push the ICE car sales ban against the push- | back of the established cars manufacturers. | | ICE cars are such a nuisance in cities by polluting the | air. I look forward to a time when my children will be | able to enjoy clean air in the cities. | nickpp wrote: | Banning ICE cars in cities is completely different from | banning ICE car _sales_ in whole countries. | Glawen wrote: | I call this egoism. Modern ecologism just aims to make a | nice walled garden around their voters, they don't care | what is happening outside this garden. In the reality, | other parts of the country/earth is getting polluted to | produce the goods. | | I much prefer the older ways with polluting factory in | the city, at least everyone could see what it takes to | provide each good, and share its cost. The current way of | doing things is to ban everything, which force | manufacturers to produce elsewhere in the world and | import it. Plus we are loosing knowledge in the process. | 76SlashDolphin wrote: | The thing is producing a product for the entire world in | one place has massive economies of scale vs producing | things locally in every other city or even 1 factory per | country. While going back to Victorian-era local | production would turn cities back into the garbage dumps | they once were, I highly doubt it would end up lowering | emissions. | bearmode wrote: | ICE bans won't prevent people from buying used cars. | mmikeff wrote: | Not banning per se, just stopping sales of new. So there | will still be plenty of used ICE cars knocking around for a | good few years. | foepys wrote: | Will there be _gas_ stations, though? | century19 wrote: | And will there be enough power stations to generate all | the electricity? | rootusrootus wrote: | How much more generation do we actually need. For one, | charging typically does not happen when the grid is at | peak load, so a lot of spare capacity is available. | Second, it takes approximately the same amount of energy | to refine a tank of gasoline as it does to completely | charge an EV, so it'll be a wash. | mavhc wrote: | Yes, but what will they be powered by? | xerxiii wrote: | not sure why you're so confident of that when we don't | even produce enough power for our current needs let alone | powering millions of cars | andrewaylett wrote: | Here in the UK, we call them petrol stations. But "gas" | is still appropriate, because 15 years ago LPG | conversions were all the rage, and every petrol station | had gas too. | | Nowadays I can only think offhand of a single local | retail fuel establishment that will sell you both US and | UK "gas". | prox wrote: | If it's like how analog photography shops were going, no | not really. Perhaps you will get specialized shops for | fuel and biofuels? | Tade0 wrote: | Or we'll just go full circle and gasoline will be | available at pharmacies: | | https://radair.com/blog/2011/11/10/automotive-history- | benz/ | prox wrote: | Wondering... Is it possible to make tiny refineries for | say a town or area? So locally produced or is that a | environmental nightmare? | Workaccount2 wrote: | It makes orders of magnitude more sense to have one | centralized large refinery and then many dispersed | holding tanks to distribute fuel. This model may sound | familiar. | Tade0 wrote: | There's a refinery next to one of the highways exiting | Vienna, Austria: | | https://www.google.com/maps/@48.147145,16.5005479,3a,75y, | 168... | | People live on the other side of that highway, so I guess | it's possible, but I used to drive through that area on a | regular basis and the smell hard to forget. | | Apart from that such facilities need to be large to be | cost-effective. | actionfromafar wrote: | Many engines can be converted to run on ethanol. | sidewndr46 wrote: | This gets thrown out quite a bit but I don't really buy | it. If it is not designed for alcohol, it probably isn't | going to work. Alcohol has too many weird interactions | with stuff like aluminum. | actionfromafar wrote: | Which was why I didn't say "all" or anything like that. | But basically a lot of engines from Ford and Volvo can | run on ethanol. Any old iron block can if you replace | pipes and hoses. And so on. | sidewndr46 wrote: | Sure, if you rebuild an engine to run on ethanol it'll | run on ethanol. | actionfromafar wrote: | Which is why I said converted. The wrong kind of rubber | will get brittle from ethanol. But for an iron block, | it's not rocket science. Any shade tree mechanic could do | it. | pjc50 wrote: | Many countries are running on part-ethanol already; the | UK is on "E10" (up to 10%) | sidewndr46 wrote: | partial ethanol and full alcohol are not even close. | bluGill wrote: | Close enough. E10 is enough to see most of the issues you | will see with pure Ethanol. Most engines just need to run | is different fuel maps. ideally you would make other | changes (increase the compression ratio), but they are | expensive. | actionfromafar wrote: | Some engines (SAAB, I'm looking at you) will detect | knocks and adapt the map on the fly. | | Then, there's the more insane stuff: | | https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1024086_ethanol- | powered-... | johncalvinyoung wrote: | most gasoline available in the eastern USA is E10. I go | out of my way to get E0 for a vintage high-performance | vehicle I drive on occasion, it's noticeably happier | without the ethanol, even if it can drive on E10 without | damage. | pjc50 wrote: | It's not economic and it's both an environmental and | safety nightmare. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire "largest | peacetime explosion in Europe" | | I live in Edinburgh, and there's regular complaints about | flaring from the Mossmorran refinery, which lights up the | night sky, produces smoke, and is incredibly loud. | prox wrote: | Wow, that's a gigantic fire right there. So it seems | local refineries are not very interesting. | loeg wrote: | Certainly "for a few good years." | frant-hartm wrote: | > plenty of used ICE cars | | Hence plenty of customers for gas stations | jader201 wrote: | I'm not so sure. | | I think at some point, the cost of operating gas stations | will fall below a threshold that it doesn't justify | keeping them open, even if there is still _some_ demand. | | E.g. imagine if demand were cut in half -- I think more | than half of the gas stations would shut down. | nicoburns wrote: | It will happen, but I reckon it'll be more like 2045 than | 2035 (and even then they'll still be _some_ gas stations, | just far fewer and you might have to start keeping | emergency supplies with you). | chii wrote: | Which would make them antiques in a decade or two. Time | to start the collection! | nixass wrote: | No, not for another ~15 years and then I'll still be able | to buy ICE car. EVs in current state are not so good and | what's even worse new ICE cars are becoming shittier and | shittier because of restrictions imposing on them | rootusrootus wrote: | You should buy what works best for you. But if you really | believe an EV is not better than an ICE car in nearly all | objective metrics, you are doing yourself a disservice. | Akronymus wrote: | My biggest problem is that they target the individuals, | rather than the actual big polluters. (Hell, carbon | footprint was coined by the oil lobby.) | paconbork wrote: | Who do you think purchases the products that heavy | industry makes? | zip1234 wrote: | EVs are amazing already. Great performance, quiet, | convenient for many use cases. How are ICE cars getting | 'shittier'? | DennisP wrote: | > EVs in current state are not so good | | Well then, good thing the world's largest battery maker | is starting to mass-produce batteries with twice the | energy density. | nixass wrote: | It solves only one of multiple problems new generations | of cars (EVs especially) are facing | jader201 wrote: | As an EV owner, I'm not sure what problems you're | referring to. | | Sure the infrastructure has a bit to catch up, but even | without infrastructure, we're completely fine to use our | EV for 90% of our commute (and our ICE car the other | 10%). | | But if density -- thus range -- were to double, | infrastructure becomes even less of a dependency. | loeg wrote: | It's the main problem, as far as I can tell. I guess | charging / "pump" time is an issue for cross-country road | trips, but my personal needs would be entirely met by | home charging. | pelorat wrote: | In ~15 years if you buy an ICE you also need to afford | the gas. | bsaul wrote: | in 15 years there will be so few ice cars on the roads | that gas could very well be cheaper than electricity. | | Finding a gas station may be problematic ( although i | doubt truck will move to electricity that soon) | frant-hartm wrote: | Average car age in US and EU is somewhere around 12 | years. EVs are still a minority (growing, but less than | 50 % and it will stay that way for a few years). | | Most of the ICE cars sold now will be on the roads in 15 | years. | vardump wrote: | At some point dramatically lower demand will start to | push the gas price higher. | bluGill wrote: | Not really because some amount of a barrel of oil is | gasoline. The other uses of oil will still want their | fraction and be willing to pay. The refineries will need | to get rid of the parts of the crude that doesn't have a | market to sell to the market they have. | | There will of course be much less refineries. The other | uses of oil are small niches, and so the world needs one- | two small refinery to supply their needs. So there will | be price shocks as the large refineries close. | rootusrootus wrote: | The reverse scaling will be the problem more than the | commodity price. As gas stations close, finding a | refueling place will similar to what early adopters of | EVs faced, but without the ability to do >90% of fueling | at home or anywhere else the electrical grid reaches. | Although maybe it'll become a thing for some people to | store tanks of gasoline at their home. At that point I'd | trade for a diesel vehicle, though, if I had a hard | requirement of an ICE. | bluGill wrote: | Farmers already keep tanks around to refuel at home. As | do several of the other niches that I see as more likely | to keep a gasoline car. If you live in the city you won't | have a place to store fuel - but also won't need to since | an EV is more likely to meet your needs. | Moldoteck wrote: | I would say it depends on the country. Russia is still a | major exporter of petroleum goods and can make the price | very appealing to it's neighbors (but yeah, after they | started the war, the situation is not so strightforward) | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | It won't happen in USA until a majority of chips and EV | batteries required can be reliably produced and sourced | domestically. Until that point the continued production and | sale of new ICEs will still be required as a matter of | national security. | theK wrote: | I'm afraid these bans get systematically sabotaged by well | funded ice lobby groups. | | Just look at what happened to the EU's ice ban for personal | vehicles. | | Spoiler: while new gasoline burning cars are technically | banned after 2035 it will be completely legal to sell new | gasoline burning cars by labelling them e-fuel only... | AtlasBarfed wrote: | In the 10-year timeframe it probably doesn't matter. Ev | drivetrain's and batteries are going to drop well under | what ICE drivetrain cost will be simply because there's | just so many less components and announcements like this | and the sodium ions stuff really leads out a path to that | economic super advantage | lelanthran wrote: | > I'm afraid these bans get systematically sabotaged by | well funded ice lobby groups. | | Nonsense; it's just harsh reality landing on green wet- | dreams. | | They effectively propose a ban on cheap cars, and you | expected ... what, exactly? | | The only way they're replacing ICE vehicles is by making | the EVs cheaper, and there is a limit to how high they | can tax sales of ICE vehicles or fuels without a | population revolt. | hutzlibu wrote: | "The only way they're replacing ICE vehicles is by making | the EVs cheaper" | | Even if electric cars would be cheaper, faster and longer | running - some people would rather die, than give up | their ICE cars and motorcycles. | | The strong lobby in germany against banning aren't the | poor, but the rich who want to drive their roaring | Porsche till eternity. They literally say that. | | I can somewhat understand the appeal of an loud engine, | the feel of the road etc., but personally I will indeed | celebrate the day, all those loud polluting machines are | gone from the cities and one other bright day also from | the mountains. | | But I am not sure if I will see that day, as cars have | allmost a religious meaning to quite some people, | especially here in germany, but not only here. But yes, | the bigger problem in the short run will be economics. | Otherwise all the old cars just will get sold to africa | and go on running there. But china is mass producing | cheap electric cars for example, so things are scaling | up. | tshaddox wrote: | If it's really only about the rich, then just tax the | heck out of the cars, or better yet the gasoline. If the | price of gas includes the full cost of carbon | sequestration then sure, why not? It's still not a great | look from the perspective of income inequality, of | course. | lelanthran wrote: | > Even if electric cars would be cheaper, faster and | longer running - some people would rather die, than give | up their ICE cars and motorcycles. | | Well lets stop calling this the reason for unbanning | _until_ EVs get cheaper, faster and longer running. | | I mean, sure, some people are like that, but we won't | know how many there are _until_ EVs are cheaper, faster | and longer running. Painting the opposition to ICE bans | as "they will argue the same even when EVs are cheaper, | faster and longer running" is irrational. | tshaddox wrote: | They will definitely get "sabotaged" if they turn out to | not be even remotely realistic, for example if lithium | production is nowhere near what it needs to be to replace | all new automobile production. | theK wrote: | While this is true in theory I don't see how it is | relevant. The battery industry is in overdrive right now, | new chemistries are being put to the test daily and | multiple manufacturers are already working on | productizing energy storage that doesn't use rare earths | at all. Also, breakthroughs like the main post mema that | you need less and less rare earths for the same bang. | | It becomes increasingly certain that we won't need as | much lithium as the fossil lobby would like us to | believe. | giobox wrote: | The recent announcement (also from CATL!) of sodium ion | batteries that are competitive with typical vehicle grade | Lithium cells (LFP chemistry) means Lithium is unlikely | to be the blocker people argue either. Lithium Ion is | already potentially no longer the only viable battery | chemistry at scale. | | > https://www.electrive.com/2023/04/21/catl-and-byd-to- | use-sod... | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | _VERY_ few places are even _thinking_ of banning ICE | sales within 5 years - most timelines are 15 years - at | which point, if you 're looking at realistic projections | - you won't even need to ban them. The sales will already | be very low (in the places that are _thinking_ about the | bans). | | The reality of these bans is that exception after | exception is tacked on for a long time. | | One of the cool things about this type of political | maneuver is that it's a bit like the Fed Put. You can get | the market to move in the direction you want without | actually shooting your bazooka. Just by saying your | _thinking_ about banning ICE cars - you 're going to get | manufacturers and sellers preparing for that and shifting | over as much sales as they can to non-ICE cars. | xienze wrote: | > I'm afraid these bans get systematically sabotaged by | well funded ice lobby groups. | | They'll be sabotaged by reality. Thinking ICE cars and | gas stations will become a fading memory by 2035 is | wishful thinking. Politicians get big headlines and | praise for proposing ICE bans and such, but as the date | draws closer the reality of "OK, maybe we're not quite | there yet" sets in and the date will be pushed back again | and again. There is a very long tail with ICE, and it's | going to take a very, very long time to replace them. | Wholesale upheavals of established technology are | difficult. | | For a noteworthy example in another domain, IPv4 has been | on its last legs for how long now? | nicoburns wrote: | They're banning _new_ ICE car sales in 2035: existing | ones can continue to run. So the aim would be to mostly | phase out ICE cars by something more like 2050-2060 | (bearing in the mind the last generation of ICE cars will | probably get a slightly extended lifetime to smooth the | transition). That seems pretty realistic to me, perhaps | with some exceptions for certain niche uses (which would | probably be <5% of vehicles). | xienze wrote: | Sure, I'm mostly addressing the folks in this thread who | are musing on whether there will be more than a few gas | stations total in the country by 2035... | theK wrote: | How is this related to IP? We are talking about | legislature being written to force us to be more Eco | friendly. No politician ever wrote or proposed | legislation for IP versions. | xienze wrote: | > How is this related to IP? | | It's an analogous situation demonstrating how hard it is | to unseat an incumbent, ubiquitous technology with | another, and how long it takes, even if that alternative | is superior. | geysersam wrote: | Why would anyone want to use e-fuel in 2035 instead of | electricity? | | (Except for "luxury" brands that just want to be special | to distinguish themselves from the rabble.) | mdp2021 wrote: | > _Why would anyone want to use e-fuel in 2035 instead of | electricity_ | | It will depend on their needs and if the device covers | them. For example (as said already even here): long | distance travel, practicality of refuelling (no, the need | of some will not be fulfilled by leaving the car in | charge nightly), decent technology (e.g. some will refuse | to own an internet connected vehicle). | dalyons wrote: | Long distance and refueling will be solved by 2035. | They're close now. I'm will to bet all new gas cars are | going to be internet connect too, it's already heading | that way, and has little to do with EVs | mdp2021 wrote: | > _I'm will to bet all new gas cars ... little to do_ | | Would you drive them? Would you own an internet connected | door, vehicle, pacemaker? Some would rather find the keys | out of the asylum. | | You say <<little to do>>, but the point was that we are | informed of <<gas cars>> without wireless connection, | whereas word is that for some reason all electric | vehicles seem to be. We know that some <<gas cars>> are | spared, but they say all electric ones will be bound to | the wave of improper engineering, so this defines some | hope or way out for the traditional making and rules out | the new one. | ilyt wrote: | braBRAAAAAAP, that's why | ant6n wrote: | Well the FDP party which is in the coalition govt of | Germany and torpedoed the EU ICE ban in the last minute | and forced the inclusion of this e-fuel nonsense for the | whole EU is run by a dude who likes to drive a Porsche | and who is friends with the Porsche company. Porsche is | the only major car producer in Germany that favors | efuels. So uh, I think the FDP doesn't like the ICE ban, | because as a Laisser-faire party, they favor "open | technology solutions" and want the "market" to decide on | the best technological solutions for the climate problem. | bartvk wrote: | Long distance trucks? | Slapshot_gd wrote: | That was exactly my thinking actually..... I own an | equestrian property as a hobby, I need a big diesel truck | (1 ton) to haul horses, hay, tractor, etc... Sometimes | for very long distances (>1000kms) for shows, etc... | There are no viable options today, or in the near (10-15 | years) future that offer viable alternatives in the form | of an EV... at least not from traditional HD truck | vendors..... | theK wrote: | The EU ICE ban discussd here only targets personal | vehicles. The trucking and aviation industroies are | different discussions. | NDizzle wrote: | I'll still be driving my land cruiser in 2035. | theK wrote: | The core of the matter is this: | | They are only LABELED as e-fuel cars. You can run them | just fine with classical fuels. | | EDIT: emphasis | crote wrote: | A lot of gas stations have differently-sized nozzles for | regular gasoline and diesel, and the fueling opening in | the car is sized so that a diesel nozzle does not fit in | a gasoline car. They should do something similar for | e-fuel so people don't "accidentally" fuel them with | classical fuel. | theK wrote: | What you are forgetting is that diesel engines only work | with diesel and gasoline ones only work with gasoline. | This creates a natural incentive for the customers to not | mix this up. | | In the e-fuel vs trad-fuel story you do not have that | incentive. | | What you DO have, is an incentive to actually do the | switch. Projections put e-fuel production costs at a | 1500% premium over fossil fuels and wide spread | availability is actually a hard scientific problem as | even the announced global production capacity* of e-fuels | is only enough for a few thousand vehicles. | | * Apparently, to date, the biggest portion of announced | e-fuel production misses either an energy provider or | financial backing or both. | | A good German summary: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnrudYCzh2E | cultureswitch wrote: | The timelines for ICE bans within a decade are ridiculous | from a technology and market standpoint and terrible for | the environment. | | The best car technology is the one you don't use much. | And we already have decades of cars in good enough | condition to be driven weekly rather than daily. | | EVs will barely scratch the surface of environmental | issues with transportation. And they will create a new | range of supply problems while also not solving traffic | congestion issues that plague our cities. | | It would be far more preferable to encourage people to | use the same car for longer and especially to leave it in | the garage when they can use other modes of | transportation. Or, use car sharing rather than a | personal car. | em500 wrote: | ICE bans apply to sales of new cars. It will take another | 20 years or so after a ban before most of the existing | stock of ICE is actually replaced. | bluGill wrote: | It will be faster than you think, mostly because gas | stations will be closing and so the inconvenience of | fueling you car will cut that tail of - except for niches | where EVs are particularly bad. | kevstev wrote: | It seems reasonable that most gas stations will add fast | charging stations no? And then maybe add a coffee shop or | quick food place that you can spend money at and be the | real source of revenue for these locations. | | Its not going to be a cheap or painless conversion, but | there is absolutely a path forward for most gas stations | I think. | bluGill wrote: | some of them. I think most will drop fuel completely, | some will turn into stores where local buy milk or | something, but many will close completely as not needed | since people charge at home. | | In denser areas charging will move to mall like areas | where people will get out of the car for longer. Gas | stations are not generally not setup for people to hang | out for 30 minutes, they don't have enough space for | people to park that long. They are setup for use the | bathroom, grab a snack and get out. Most people charging | will want to get groceries or other supplies they are | getting anyway (which is to say since they can't charge | at their apartment they are going to look for places to | shop where they can recharge) | | In rural areas (truck stops) are more setup for spending | more time. They often have small restaurants already so | you can eat inside. They are more general purpose stores | and often serve the locals as the place to buy things | between trips to dollar general or the city. They have | more parking (land is cheap so they will buy more if | needed), so there is place to put in all the needed EV | chargers. Plus they get a lot more customers who are on | trip so long they couldn't charge at home. | bottlepalm wrote: | Probably not, people charge at home or apartment and | start everyday with 300 miles of range. No need to ever | visit a charger unless you're on a long trip. | | That combined with bigger stores like 7-Eleven, CVS, | Walmart, etc.. adding their own charging stations will | kill most gas stations. | ilyt wrote: | Right because ICE trucks will also magically stop | existing /s | BurningFrog wrote: | If you're the only gas station in an area, raising prices | should be a better strategy than closing. | bluGill wrote: | By then people who need fuel will know to special order | it. Because if you are the only one selling gas that | means someone lives in a less dense area that can't get | fuel at all. Either that or you have competition, they | are just not across the street and so you have to keep | prices low enough people won't drive the extra miles to | your competition. | dhx wrote: | Spare parts and maintenance are likely going to be a | problem first for ICE owners, rather than fuel | availability. Who would be crazy enough now to invest in | (and maintain) a factory for producing ICE-specific | parts? Parts and skills for ICE will become scarcer and | more expensive, making a new EV look economical to ICE | owners in very short time. It has already been a few | years now where it has been uneconomical not just to | build a new fossil fuel power plant, but also to continue | operating them due to maintenance costs. I'd suggest the | same thing with ICE vehicles--it becomes easier/cheaper | to run an EV rather than an old ICE quicker than people | may usually assume. | bluGill wrote: | The investment in parts is already made. All they need to | do is not scrap the tooling. Until the car the part went | to is 15 years old that isn't worth doing as you will | make more from selling parts than from the cost of | storing the tooling. Common parts like filters will be | around for much longer. Parts that rarely break will have | the tools destroyed sooner, but with millions of ICE cars | on the road there will be a lot of needs for parts even | if the need is less than today. | iSnow wrote: | I haven't heard of any country that wants to ban existing | ICE cars. | [deleted] | tpmx wrote: | The urban greens in the previous Swedish government | coalition wants to ban fossil-based petrol from being | sold starting 2030 - which economically speaking is kind | of the same thing. | pl90087 wrote: | How is that the same thing? | | Every ounce of oil coming out of the groud and getting | burned ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere. Banning that has | nothing to do with ICEs. | | You can run an ICE on synthetic fuels. It's not as | energy-efficient but only half the efficiency from a | renewable source is still better than "full" efficiency | from a fossil source. If you _really_ must use an ICE, | there will be a way. It won't be cheap, but it's your | choice. There is no human right for cheap ICE fuel. | slashdev wrote: | It's more or less the same thing because if your fuel | price doubles you're going to scrap that car and buy an | electric. | | Nobody is forcing you to do so, it just doesn't make much | sense to keep driving that ICE. When everybody is making | that decision parts and maintenance will be more | expensive and harder to come by too - accelerating the | transition. | tpmx wrote: | IIRC it was discussed as closer to a 3x price jump (but | don't quote me on that). | jaystraw wrote: | not if existing ICE vehicles can be sold -- unless they | can't, that'd be an incredible waste | chinabot wrote: | Maybe the ban should have specifically stated that all | ICE cars must be convertible to EV ten years before the | expiry date. DIYers are doing it all the time but not | with newer cars as they are too locked down and | complicated. | andrepd wrote: | Exactly. The answer to the problems of ICE cars are not | EV cars. It's boring stuff like trains, public | transportation, or walkable urbanism. | sveme wrote: | I think you should read up on what ICE bans in countries | where they are implemented actually means. | | Hint: You can continue to use the ICE vehicle you bought | in 2034 in the EU until infinity. | bluGill wrote: | > You can continue to use the ICE vehicle you bought in | 2034 in the EU until infinity. | | Sure, if you can find fuel. By 2034 EVs will be enough of | the market that gas stations are already closing | (remember today new cars are 10 year old used cars, and | there is every reason to think EVs will be half of all | cars). There is still one on every corner, so you might | not see this trend, but it will be in the statistics. By | 2038 you will noticed it because many corners won't have | a gas station at all. And of course the stations will | already see this on the bottom line and will be less | interested in replacing their pumps when the get old, and | if they break they might just close that one island | instead of fixing it. By 2045 fuel will be special order | in most places. | | Note that construction, freight, and other high energy | use niches will still use a lot of fuel, so diesel will | be available for a while longer. However those vehicles | tend to use larger nozzles that won't fit in your diesel | car. Gasoline will be hard to find - you can still make | road trips, but you will need to plan your fuel stops | like people plan EV charging today (on some roads you | don't need to plan your EV charging, but there are others | you must). | omgomgomgomg wrote: | I dont see how in 10 years most cars will be evs, when | the ev sales percentage is 12% as of now. Which equals to | 9.5% of electric vehicles on the road today. The increase | in ev sales is in the low single digits per year, the | math just doesnt check out. | bluGill wrote: | EVs are not expected to have a constant growth curve. | With the expected ban of ICE EV will be the majority in a | few years, and by 2034 few ICEs will be sold. | | I do expect ICEs will be just under 50% of total cars, | you could argue they are more like 55% of all cars, but | it won't be 75%. | AtlasBarfed wrote: | Another example of humans not understanding the | exponential function | nuancebydefault wrote: | They said something similar about radios and books quite | a long time ago. | | I'm afraid the problem of generating/transporting enough | electrons to all places where cars, buses, trucks, need | charging will not be solved completely within 10 years. | lelanthran wrote: | > Sure, if you can find fuel. | | Of course you'll find fuel; ICE trucks aren't being | banned. You can use their fuel. | | Might be slightly inconvenient to have to drive to a | depot once a month, but people will do it if the | economics are right. | giobox wrote: | This assumes future regulations will allow you to do | this. There are already examples of commercial fuels | today that sell fuel only to commercial customers at a | different rate. | | See "red diesel" in the UK - its just plain ole diesel | taxed differently for commercial use, but illegal for use | in privately owned personal vehicles. It's dyed red to | allow its use in private vehicles to be discovered from | the discoloration of engine parts etc. | | Personally I expect rules on what can be pumped into what | will be different by 2045 in a lot of places, and while | it might still be possible it may not be so simple. | | > https://www.crownoil.co.uk/faq/red-diesel-questions- | and-answ... | throwaway22032 wrote: | I mean, come on. | | Infinity might be a long time, but we had fuel stations | when there were 25% of the cars on the road that there | are now. | | There are around 25-50 petrol stations within 30 mins | drive of me. | | There is no reason to believe that it will be impossible | to fuel your car until ICE cars become collectors' items. | | In the very most remote areas, maybe. | bradeeoh wrote: | And the very remote areas that may have just 1 gas | station are also least likely to have high EV penetration | until the absolutely tail-end of the ICE-era. | toast0 wrote: | I'm sure this will happen. But I think your timeline is | way faster than it will happen. | | I highly doubt gasoline will be hard to find in most | places by 2045; I'd expect a lot fewer fueling stations, | but I think even at 10% of the station count, gasoline | will still be convenient and easy. And, if gasoline is | less convenient, you can always use gas cans to extend | your range. They're not too expensive, and not too | inconvenient (epa 'anti-spill' nozzles that make it hard | to fill without spilling not withstanding); long term | storage is problematic, but if you're regularly using it, | no big deal. Most gasoline powered vehicles have at least | a 300 mile range, and it's not hard to find vehicles with | a larger range. | omgomgomgomg wrote: | I dont know, but London is pushing very agressively | towards that goal. | | I am not sure if its a good idea, nothing seems to be a | good idea in London, but the congestion charge and the | newer diesel charges surely add up. | | And predictably, some of the worst usual suspects are | exempt. | nicoburns wrote: | Only ~50% of households in London own a car anyway. And | that number is tilted towards households in the outer | suburbs that aren't subject to the congestion charge | https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many- | cars-a... | sidewndr46 wrote: | It's particular ironic in China, where >50% of their | domestic energy production is apparently from coal. That | being said, it could improve metro air quality a large | degree because I'm guessing coal power plants aren't | built in downtown Beijing. | Scarblac wrote: | There may still be a choice, I'm preparing to go carless in | a few years. | hoenickf wrote: | By what factor is it increasing? | 11thEarlOfMar wrote: | How do these batteries compare in terms of charge/discharge | cycles? I suppose that if they can store twice the energy by | mass, they'd only need 1/2 the cycles to be equivalent, yes? | | If it's twice the density and the same number of cycles, a BEV | will have a lifetime of 4 ICE vehicles. | CyanLite2 wrote: | Anybody but me notice the weird wording on safety? | | "EXCELLENT density" "EXCELLENT performance" "good safety" | | Does this mean it's more likely to explode than current-gen NMC | batteries? | hoenickf wrote: | by what factor is it increasing? | JustSomeNobody wrote: | I look forward to the weight savings of having a smaller battery | would bring. | tppiotrowski wrote: | > offering excellent charge and discharge performance as well as | good safety performance. | | Hopefully not more than 2x the cost... | SamBam wrote: | More than 2x the cost might still be worth it for doubling car | ranges and potentially making electric flight possible. | idontwantthis wrote: | Why does 500wh/kg make electric aircraft possible? 6x less than | kerosene. Is that the break even on cost if you can source very | cheap electricity? | | Seems like it would still annihilate the payload/range. | kpw94 wrote: | > Why does 500wh/kg make electric aircraft possible? 6x less | than kerosene | | Where did you read that kerosene is at 3000Wh/kg? My googling | says 12,000Wh/kg | | The tweet thread from TFA and its replies just says that for | aircraft, weight impact is important. See | https://twitter.com/__bdimitrov__/status/1298753593638440960: | | "260 to 400 Wh/kg should lengthen flight time by 90.8% --- | assuming that 100% of the drone weight is from the battery." | | But going from 400 to 500 Wh/kg adds another 39% on top of | that, so 2.6x longer total | DrSAR wrote: | Yes. 12kWh/kg chemical energy for kerosene, a little more for | avgas. But with a 25% efficiency you are only getting 3kWh | out of a kg of fuel. Electric motors tend to have higher | efficiency -- maybe up to 75% so you might nearly get 500Wh | from a kg of battery. | oblio wrote: | Electric motors are over 85%, some reaching 95%, from what | I remember. | fwlr wrote: | I don't think Musk has given a writeup of his reasons for | thinking 400wh/kg is the magic number, but a lot of research | has been done that says similar numbers. This paper | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666691X2... | is a good review; it cites researchers saying 800wh/kg for an | electric Airbus A320, NASA saying 400Wh/kg for general aviation | and 750Wh/kg for regional aviation, and other researchers | saying 600Wh/kg for commercial regional aircraft and 820Wh/kg | for commercial narrow-body aircraft. | | That paper also sketches out the argument for electric flight | at close to current battery densities rather than close to | kerosene energy densities. It goes: | | Jet fuel gets roughly 28% final efficiency while electric gets | roughly 90%, so divide jet fuel by 3 to get 4,000 effective | Wh/kg. | | Alternate aerodynamic designs and especially distributed | propulsion are much more achievable with electric engines. | Imagine the difficulty of making a 14-, 24-, or even 36-turbine | aircraft, yet all of those have been built and flown with | electric engines already | (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-57_Maxwell, | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_XV-24_LightningStrike, | and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilium_Jet respectively). | Gains of 3-5x have been observed here and higher is predicted, | the conservative mean is 4x, so divide again by 4 to get jet | fuel to 1,000 effective Wh/kg. | | That is getting close to current energy densities of batteries. | You only need to find one more ~2x improvement that electric | flight can obtain over jet fuel to bring it into the range of | 500Wh/kg, which CATL is saying they have in production right | now. | | (Presumably Musk's magic 400Wh/kg number involved another 2.5x | improvement, though I don't know where specifically he thought | it would come from. The internet seems to think he said you can | go higher because you don't need oxidizer from the air to burn | jet fuel, but that doesn't sound right since you still need to | push on the air with your fans and you'll run out of that at | high altitude before you run out of oxygen, so it must be | coming from somewhere else. Regardless, the point is that jet | fuel imposes design constraints that trap you in a local | maximum of aircraft efficiency, and electric engines allow you | to explore a wider space which may have much much higher | maximums.) | someweirdperson wrote: | > Jet fuel gets roughly 28% final efficiency while electric | gets roughly 90% | | 90% likely doesn't include the efficieny of the prop? | fwlr wrote: | I believe it does, that paper is comparing like-for-like | jet turbines vs electric engines. | krasin wrote: | Let's consider Cessna-172S ([4]). Its characteristics: | | - 130 kW engine, Lycoming_O-360 that weighs 117 kg. For | comparison, an electric motor of this range would weigh 11-13 | kg (at 10-12 kW/kg, [2]). That saves 100+ kg weight immediately | and we can put 50+ kWh batteries instead. | | - It carries up to 200 liters of kerosene ([3]), which weighs | 164 kg. We can place 82 kWh of batteries instead. | | - The engine consumes around 30 liters/hour ([1]), which gives | us ~6.7 hours of flight time or the equivalent of 6.7*130=871 | kWh for an electric-power plane. | | - The fuel tank weighs about ~14 kg (source: an LLM, sorry) and | gives us another 7 kWh. | | So, we can put 50+82+7=139 kWh. By using modern materials, we | can probably increase it to ~180 kWh, which will give us about | 1.5 hours of flight time / 300 km range. This is much less than | 6.7 hours, but quite practical for recreation and short | flights. And it would be much cheaper to run too. | | That said, still not practical for medium and long flights. | | 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-360 | | 2. | https://cleantechnica.com/2021/03/25/groundbreaking-h3x-moto... | | 3. https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for- | sale/specifications?s... | | 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 | plantain wrote: | The point not considered is the Cessna 172 is an | extraordinarily draggy airframe - it didn't need to be clean | and laminar because fuel was (relatively) cheap. | | Electric aircraft of the future will have half the drag or | less. High aspect ratios, flush fairings, streamlined | cockpits etc. | ezzaf wrote: | The power requirement at cruising speed would quite a lot | less than max power would it not? If cruse consumed 60% of | max you'd be using closer to 80kW which would give you over 2 | hours flight time. | [deleted] | audunw wrote: | For a direct conversion you could just look at the Alpha | Electro | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Alpha_Trainer#Alpha_. | .. | | 324 nmi range for the regular variant. Around 65 nmi for the | electric version. | | This is with older batteries, probably with very bad pack- | level energy density. The battery pack can even be swapped. | Great to avoid having to wait for charging, but probably | terrible for weight. | | If you design the aircraft for electric flight from the | ground up (see Maxwell X-57 for how you could do that), with | a structural battery pack, and with 300-500wh/kg batteries, | I'm willing to bet a 2-5 times increase in range is viable. | Someone wrote: | The airplane would be a bit heavier at landing, though. I | expect that will require a somewhat heavier landing gear. | | I also think taking out the weight of the tank is unfair if | you don't add weight for the structures for holding the | batteries. | | But yes, for many smaller planes, we're close to flying | electric on shorter flights being economically feasible. | vezuchyy wrote: | Harbour Air successfully tested electric plane based on De | Havilland Beaver. This is still a super short distance but | I think the longest route Harbour air has is Vancouver <-> | Seattle and it's a 55 minute flight. | krasin wrote: | Fair points. | | But the point that CATL makes with this announce is that | before this capacity boost, electric planes were a complete | joke. Now, they are only somewhat funny. | | What I am more excited about is that electrically pumped | rockets are now a lot more practical. As an example, | Electron is such a rocket ([1]). It can now reduce the | weight of the battery pack and increase payload. | | 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_(rocket_engine) | lylejantzi3rd wrote: | > before this capacity boost, electric planes were a | complete joke. Now, they are only somewhat funny. | | Ha! Well put. | ozim wrote: | Maybe dropping battery just before landing could be a thing | - on a small parachute or some catch ground in front of | landing strip. | | Silly as it sounds just thinking :) | idontwantthis wrote: | I have an imagined invention where battery packs drop off | an electric jet as it cruises and they glide to a landing | somewhere when they are out of power. | jansan wrote: | Sounds about as realistic as shooting nuclear waste into | space. | midoridensha wrote: | Nuclear waste can be stored on the Moon. Just be careful | that it doesn't overheat and turn into a giant rocket, | propelling the Moon out of the solar system. | phreeza wrote: | The maximum take off and landing weights for a Cessna 172 | are the same, so I don't think a heavier landing gear would | be required. | ryanjshaw wrote: | Could you run a big power rail along the runways for | delivering takeoff power? | boxed wrote: | A combustion engine itself has a lot more weight than an | electric motor too. | eastbound wrote: | > quite practical for recreation and short flights | | Perfectly agree with everything, but 1.5hr may be very short | if you need to have 30 minutes of reserve at landing. On the | saving side, you don't have to have an alternator to | transform ICE energy into energy for the dashboard | instruments. On the downside, you now need to heat the cabin | manually, rather than reusing the ICE heat. | ericbarrett wrote: | > you now need to heat the cabin manually, rather than | reusing the ICE heat. | | Interestingly, the Boeing 787 has already dispensed with | bleed air. It uses compressors for heat and electric pumps | for hydraulics. | someweirdperson wrote: | That's probably less of an efficiency concern, but more | likely to avoid future legal cost for supplying | contaminated air to the cabin. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerotoxic_syndrome | someweirdperson wrote: | No alternator, but some dc-dc to get the voltage of the | main battery down to 14/28 V for the avionics, lights, etc. | crakenzak wrote: | > On the downside, you now need to heat the cabin manually, | rather than reusing the ICE heat. | | Most modern airliners do not use bleed air for climate | control in the cabin anymore. | pcurve wrote: | Yep. Also... kerosene gets spent. Pilots can also dump fuel in | emergency when it's too heavy to land. Battery powered planes | can't dump electricity, so I'd imagine some trade offs that | have to be made. | thriftwy wrote: | Electric engines may be much more reliable than kerosene | engines. | Toutouxc wrote: | This is more about day to day operations than emergencies. | For an electric plane, your MTOW (max takeoff weight) is | equal to your MLW (max landing weight). An ICE plane can | take off with "bonus" fuel that it can't land with for | structural reasons, while an electric plane can't. | pcurve wrote: | I would hope so, considering this is what it looks like | inside. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls- | Royce_Trent_1000#/media/... | | But. Turbine engine is actually very reliable and doesn't | need overhaul for 20,000 flight hours. | thriftwy wrote: | The problem here is single-engine planes losing engine on | takeoff. Would be almost non-issue with electrics. | jansan wrote: | That is a very good and often overlooked point. So in average | on a flight one has to calculate maybe with 60% weight of | kerosene, while the battery keeps 100% of its weight during | the entire flight. | tjmc wrote: | It gets worse with lithium air batteries that actually gain | weight as they discharge because of the formation of solid | oxides from the air. Argonne are reporting 1200Wh/kg in the | lab though so still worth it. | imiric wrote: | Electric planes could recharge using solar or wind. As | efficiency increases with these technologies, it would mean | planes wouldn't require carrying the same watt-for-watt | energy as fuel. | oblio wrote: | > Electric planes could recharge using solar or wind. As | efficiency increases with these technologies, it would mean | planes wouldn't require carrying the same watt-for-watt | energy as fuel. | | Those are pipe dreams :-))) | | Solar recharging for electric cars is not realistic, let | alone for electric planes. | | Wind charger... maybe there's something there, but the fact | that nobody has tried it probably means it's not good | enough. | | https://www.arenaev.com/why_solar_panels_on_cars_are_beyond | _... | | > So under optimal conditions the Hyundai solar roof would | yield 280kWh *yearly*. In London you'd get 164kWh. | imiric wrote: | Planes have a much larger surface area to carry solar | panels, and they fly above clouds, so have clearer access | to sunlight than cars do. | | Wind charging is more of a pipe dream, but there's no | reason a plane couldn't glide for a period of time to get | some energy back, similar to regenerative breaking. | | There have been experiments in both areas, and while it's | certainly unfeasible today for any large aircraft, the | technology and efficiency will only improve. It would be | wrong to discard these as an impossibility. | diziet wrote: | The concepts of potential energy and kinetic energy make | the "wind charging" idea ... difficult. | | The extra weight and structural challenges imposed by | solar panels on aircraft don't seem worth it. The math on | (174 sqft) * ideal theoretical power (250 W /m2) yields | an optimistic ideal 4000 Watts. A conservative 75% power | usage of a 172 engine is around 100kW. 4% under ideal | circumstances. | oblio wrote: | > Planes have a much larger surface area to carry solar | panels, and they fly above clouds, so have clearer access | to sunlight than cars do. | | And the energy they require for flying is an order of | magnitude than that required to drive stuff on the | ground. | Maxion wrote: | It's way cheaper and more efficient for electricity | consumers to purchase power from the grid, and for the grid | to figure out the most optimal way to produce and deliver | the power. | | Solar and wind are in many areas a) only available during | certain hours b) expensive. | | To ensure you have a stable power cost, and stable power | availability, you as a large consumer (In the EU) make PPA | agreements with power producers for specific KW rates, for | specific KWh amounts, for specific times. These are | complicated agreements. | | A few panels on some warehouses and hangers close to an | airport could keep the lights and the A/C on in the | terminal, but that's about it. No one is putting up wind | turbines anywhere close to an airport. | baq wrote: | Recharging a small plane with solar power would either take | ages or hectares. Pick your poison. | | Recharging multiple airliners will take a nuclear reactor | at the airport. | Toutouxc wrote: | Why does it have to be poison? Wouldn't having an airport | nearby be a blessing for anyone with solar panels on | their roof? Just like an industrial zone, it'd be a | nonstop load ready to buy from anyone, anytime. (Yes I | understand the infrastructure would need to change a | lot.) | dx034 wrote: | Recharging would take a lot of energy but it's not | unthinkable to have 1-3 GW supplied to an airport (which | is what a reactor would likely supply), large | metropolitan areas and large industrial factories already | get to similar amounts. It's a couple of transmission | lines and most large airports are close to population | centers anyway. | | The challenge would be getting the right amount at the | right time, like now with quick charging. Like there, | you'd probably have buffer storage at the airport so that | it consumes electricity when available (e.g. during the | day from solar) and dispenses it to aircrafts when | needed. Luckily, most airports in the world have nearly | all take offs and landings during the day, so there's a | big overlap. Dubai would be an example where likely all | would come from solar but a lot is needed over night (if | we ever get electric long-haul flights). | | So overall I don't think that this would be the limiting | factor. But I guess larger airliners are more likely to | run on synthetic fuels than electricity for a long time. | And I guess that's fine, we have a lot of areas where | cheap and/or dense batteries can help us much more in the | short term (grid storage, cars, trucks). | rgmerk wrote: | This is true. It's a big engineering project, but, guess | what, airports are very big engineering projects. | mcapodici wrote: | Dumping batteries might be a thing? After all it is an | emergency! | amelius wrote: | With parachutes, and you can reuse them. | | You can also do this on regular flights just to save | weight. It's SpaceX style reusability but on a commercial | aviation scale. | tormeh wrote: | We're talking short flights here. | gibolt wrote: | Not at this density. This is the minimum requirement for | medium length large airplanes. Small aircraft are already | viable with mass produced batteries. | | As they scale production of these, hopefully they can get 20% | additional improvements at the cell/pack level, reaching | potential to replace the most common flights. | elihu wrote: | The point isn't necessarily to equal or beat kerosene in terms | of weight and range, but rather to be good enough that electric | aircraft are usable for many or most use cases. | | Planes tend to be very expensive to operate, due to maintenance | and fuel costs. Some people would be happy to trade range for | dramatically lower operating costs. | fh973 wrote: | Soaring is currently making the switch, not only as sustainers, | but also for starting. There are models from major | manufacturers, like the Schleicher AS 33/34 me [1] or Antares | [2]. | | [1] https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/en/flugzeuge/as-34-me/ | | [2] https://www.lange-aviation.com/antares-serie/antares-21e/ | jl6 wrote: | I feel that synthetic kerosene via electrolysis is a far more | viable path to sustainable aviation than battery-electric | engines. The energy-inefficiency doesn't really matter as long | as you can keep the total cost of the flight within consumer | reach. | Toutouxc wrote: | Carbon neutral synthetic fuels might make sense for | airliners, because they're already pretty efficient, reliable | and incomprehensibly powerful and there's tons of other stuff | in them that'd require maintenance even if you took out the | engines. | | They don't make sense for general aviation planes that are | usually a fifty year-old engine design that requires | expensive overhauls and guzzles expensive fuel wrapped in a | bit of aluminum. | someweirdperson wrote: | Compated to jet fuel, avgas is more expensive today because | there's almost no market for it. When synthesized, it's | probably cheaper to produce than jet fuel. | dx034 wrote: | But do we really need to focus on general aviation? I don't | have numbers but believe it to be a pretty small part | overall. In transportation, it's also fine if we keep some | gasoline speciality vehicles for a long time, as long as | we're able to convert the vast majority of cars and trucks. | ortusdux wrote: | The best application I've seen for the currently available | electric airplanes are flight schools. One plane I looked into | has a flight time of 1.5hrs, which is plenty for training. When | I last priced out instructor time, 30% of the cost was the | fuel. This means that flight schools could cut prices by up to | 25% or so. That being said, the plane I looked into was $250k, | while a student level ICE plane could be had for $20-50k. | i-dont-remember wrote: | Video[0] isn't a direct answer, but I found it helpful for | understanding the trade offs that come when considering using | electric power for a plane vs regular fuel. They show the math | in an easy to follow diagram. | | tl;dr for their small kit aircraft the weight of batteries they | would need to match the stored energy of equivalent fuel (even | with a battery at 500wh/kg) would be 5-10x heavier, and also | not get lighter during the flight. They said for long range it | doesn't make sense, but that there are lots of companies | iterating in the short range electric space. | | - [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdSnHQtoVTI | dzhiurgis wrote: | Well we had electric aircraft for half a century, but thats | just toys. The variable is how many passengers can you fit. | jillesvangurp wrote: | Nope, the variable is cost per passenger. Large jets only | exist because fuel is really expensive. The cost per | passenger gets astronomical with smaller planes. That's why | only rich people can afford that. Big planes are more | economical. Because of the fuel. | | This is simply not true with electrical planes. A mega watt | hour of power is about 60-100$. And much cheaper than that | with renewables. Not at retail prices of course. But if you | consume power by the mwh, you'd be investing in your own | generation (solar + storage) pretty soon. A mwh is about what | you need to move a small electrical plane a few hundred | miles. The kerosene cost for a similar journey in a small jet | is going to be hundreds of dollars, even for a small jet. The | smallest jets burn 50-100 gallons of fuel per hour (in | cruise). Depending where you get your fuel, that ranges from | 3-5$ per gallon. That's why small jets are only for rich | people. Even a very short flight sets you back hundreds of | dollars. A simple propeller plane is cheaper. But we're still | talking 5-10 gallons per hour. That's why people talk about | 100$ hamburgers. Because that's what it costs to take your | tiny plane out to grab a burger somewhere. | | Big big jets are a bit more economical with fuel than small | ones. But they only makes sense if you can distribute fuel | cost among many passengers. | | With electrical, you can use lots of smaller planes cost | effectively rather than having to put lots of people in a few | bigger ones. For the same reason, you don't need big airports | either. Or worry about pollution. And even the noise of small | electrical planes is not as much of a problem. And with | autonomous flight, we won't even need pilots long term. Small | electrical planes are good enough and much nicer for | passengers, more flexible to operate, etc. | Maxion wrote: | Nail on the head. | | Airliners have already moved away from the hub-and-spoke | model to a point-to-point model where smaller narrowbodies | fly direct from small airport to small airport (E.g. | Southwest in the US). They do this specifically because of | the increased efficiencies of smaller aircraft. | | If you can further lower the per passanger cost of small | planes, you can make smaller airports more viable, and fly | point-to-point from more odd routes. Think Oxford, UK | (OXF), to Gothenburg, Sweden (GSE). | chemmail wrote: | Airlines spend about 1/4 of their expenses of fuel alone. | If they can reduce that, it will go a long way. | jillesvangurp wrote: | And more non trivial amounts of money on parts, | maintenance and inspections. Lots of moving parts. Lots | of complexity. Lots of engineering hours spent on keeping | it all running smoothly. Electrical planes still need | inspections but they are a lot more robust and the | complexity of maintaining, inspecting, and operating them | is at least an order of magnitude lower. And they break | down in less and less expensive ways and probably less | often too. | | The third expensive component is staffing. Pilots are | expensive and for complex aircraft they need lots of | training. So, simple electrical airplanes lower the | training cost and make it easier to train and find new | pilots. And complexity is also a reason you often need | two pilots. Smaller/simpler airplanes can be one pilot | operations. And of course replacing pilots entirely when | these things become autonomous brings further cost | savings. The flip side is that lots of small planes | require more pilots. | | Finally, big airports are expensive. You have to pay | landing fees in lots of places. And service fees. And | missing your assigned slot because of delays is | expensive. That too goes away if you start flying from | less busy/cheaper airports. | | So, there a few additional savings here beyond fuel. But | that is the biggest one. | | IMHO this is going to be a repeat of the EV revolution a | decade ago. But minus a lot of the emotional bickering | about range anxiety, etc. Most planes are operated by for | profit businesses. The second something cheap becomes | available, they'll be all over it. In the same way using | electrical vans vs. ice vans is not a topic of debate in | the industry. You get the electrical van if you can. They | are cheaper to operate. There's zero uncertainty on that | front so you see essentially all large fleets | transitioning to electrical vans as soon as they can get | it done. | | With electrical flight, a lot of this stuff is bottle | necked on product development (happening), certification | (starting to happen), and volume production (not | happening yet). Better batteries increase the demand | further. But without volume production, demand is not the | issue. Supply is. This is and will be supply constrained | for a long time. | jillesvangurp wrote: | Well, they were already possible and being sold. But with | relatively short but usable ranges. Those now more than double | with this battery. Which makes those planes usable in a lot | more scenarios. | | Consider the Eviation Alice, one of the 9 passenger prototype | electrical planes that is currently undergoing test flights | (i.e. it definitely works). The advertised range is 250nm. Not | amazing. But far enough for a lot of regional flights. | | What would happen if you double the battery capacity without | increasing the weight? You more than double that range. This is | counter intuitive until you realize that you are not going to | need more energy for taking off, or reserves. All that extra | energy goes into extending cruise range. So you get more than | 250nm extra. Basically, it's probably getting closer to 600nm. | That's still not amazing but there are a lot of flights every | day that are much shorter than that. All of those are now | doable with electrical planes. At a fraction of the fuel cost. | | Most flights are short haul. And they are, well, short. Which | means, all of those are in scope for electrical planes. Small | planes work well for these too. You don't have to cram hundreds | of people in a plane if you eliminate fuel cost as a major cost | factor. That's the only reason we do that. It's not like it's | pleasant or comfortable. 20 ten passenger planes can do the | work of one passenger jet. But it can do it more flexible and | cover more destinations too. | | Electrical planes are not about doing exactly the same things | that we do with traditional planes but about doing a lot more | than that. Basically, less noise, less pollution, less cost, | means that a whole lot of flights that would be considered | decadent and obscene right now become perfectly feasible and | reasonable. A ten minute hop across town. Why not? Live 70 | miles from your office? Not a problem, you commute there in | under 15 minutes. For the price of a few cups of coffee. | manmal wrote: | Just a naive question, would having 10 planes not also make | personnel way more expensive - you'd need 20 pilots instead | of 2? | | OTOH, security costs and airport fees could be cut I guess? | idontwantthis wrote: | Also wondering this. A pilot's salary divided 10 or 20 ways | sounds like a lot to me. | vidarh wrote: | > Most flights are short haul. And they are, well, short. | Which means, all of those are in scope for electrical planes. | | Exactly. In the EU, Eurocontrol (European Organisation for | the Safety of Air Navigation) says 30.6% of flights in 2020 | were 0-500km, roughly within the range of the Eviation Alice | currently. A further 43.6% of flights in the EU are between | 500 and 1500km. | | Source [1] | | > You don't have to cram hundreds of people in a plane if you | eliminate fuel cost as a major cost factor. That's the only | reason we do that. | | Not _only_. Gate capacity and runway capacity is an issue | too. But that might also be easier to resolve with smaller | electric planes. E.g. there 's Liliums approach of vertical | takeoff from little more than a helipad-sized platform, but | even non VTOL planes capable of taking off from short runways | would be helpful. | | [1] https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication/eurocontrol-data- | sna... | audunw wrote: | It's not just about runway length. Noise reduction would | also make it easier to use smaller local airports. Electric | aircraft are already more quiet, but there's probably room | for even more reduction by using ducted fans or toroidal | propellers. | | We may also see a return to more of a hub-and-spoke model. | Fly from a smaller, local airport close to you. Fly to some | hub near the half-way point, switch to a plane that takes | you to a small airport close to your destination. If planes | are smaller maybe security can be relaxed too. Total time | spent travelling could be comparable to taking a direct | flight with a large international airport further from your | origin and destination. Then the aircraft doesn't need to | be very long range. | vidarh wrote: | The thought of a return to more of a hub-and-spoke model | sounds like a total nightmare. It'd take a _huge_ price | difference before I 'd consider that, personally (EDIT: | As in, I usually check "direct flights only" or | equivalent and only relent if the cost is ridiculously | much higher). Then again my perspective is being near | multiple large international airports, so maybe that | might appeal to some. | avernon wrote: | Hub and spoke is primarily used to fill large planes. If | you have 10-20 passenger electric planes you'd land at | some random county airport, eat a hamburger or a taco | while the plane recharges, then get back on the same | plane and finish the trip. So you'd have a layover like | hub and spoke but all the concerns about missing | connections go away. | vidarh wrote: | That would be somewhat more palatable to me. | chemmail wrote: | My house alone makes 12-14kWh of electricity a day. Do that to | some land near an airport and it will be almost free. | ralusek wrote: | I assume it's a limit motivated more by how far you can go | rather than the cost of fueling/charging. Like, above a certain | weight/energy store ratio, it's either too heavy to fly or | would just have an incredibly limited range. | nvy wrote: | Seems like marketing hype to me. An 8-hour transatlantic flight | requires something like 600MWhr of energy. That's about 75MW, | which is in small nuclear reactor territory. | kolinko wrote: | Closer to 200MWh - jet engines are ~30% efficient | fwlr wrote: | The US very nearly built a 60MW nuclear reactor for use in | airplanes after their scaled down design at 2.5MW was | successfully built, ran, and tested. This was done in the | 1950s and, incidentally, required inventing molten salt | reactors. | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment | | (They actually planned to go all the way to 350MW, which | could theoretically run a transatlantic passenger jet with | 2,000 passengers, assuming it's even possible to build such | an airframe.) | rgmerk wrote: | Not every flight is transatlantic. | | These batteries, if they deliver on the advertised specs and | aren't too expensive should make short-range electric | aviation possible. | | The electric air taxis that Joby and others are working on | suddenly have a lot bigger margin to work with, as do | electric regional airliners. | Epa095 wrote: | Replacing transatlantic flights is out of the question (for | batteries for now). But there exists shorter routes, and | according to this list [1] on Wikipedia, the busiest route in | the world is 449km long. That's probably also not doable now, | but maybe in some years? | | For the first years it will probably only be a few wierd, | short routes in rich countries like Norway with 110% | financial support from the state. But when they can safely | fly 5-600km there is a actually quite a number of routes with | a lot of passengers out there. | | 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_ | ai... | sdenton4 wrote: | ICE engines only manage to turn ~15% of the stored energy in | gasoline into actual work. A bit of googling suggests that jet | engines are about 35% efficient. Stored electricity is much | more efficiently turned into mechanical work... Electric | engines have 75-90% efficiency. So, you get a lot more work or | unit of stored energy. | thedrbrian wrote: | table on wikipedia says the 15% thing might be out of date. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake- | specific_fuel_consumptio... | jansan wrote: | That factor 6 already seems to include the efficiency of the | engine. Pure chemical energy density of kerosene is 12000 | W/kg, 24x the new battery's energy densitiy. | simonCGN wrote: | Yes yes yes. Another day, another claim of a revolutionary | battery. | microjim wrote: | Cool! What didn't occur to me until I learnt it was that you get | a multiplicative benefit with energy density when weight is a | major factor (air transport, especially) because you need to | spend less energy accelerating mass used by the battery itself. | nvy wrote: | For a battery of arbitrary weight you need to spend the same | amount of energy accelerating its mass, irrespective of how | much energy that battery contains. | mkaic wrote: | Right, I believe GP's point is that for a given capacity, you | now need fewer kilograms of batteries to store it, meaning | the percentage of overall capacity used to accelerate the | mass of the battery itself goes down. | [deleted] | buro9 wrote: | The article mentions aircraft multiple times. Once a range is | achieved through available energy, reducing weight is a goal. | The energy is more useful the less weight you need to move as | then you can shave off a bit more weight as less energy was | needed. | | Your car may not need this as much, an aircraft does. | AdrianB1 wrote: | Average plane cannot fly with batteries; the weight is | still too high compared to jet fuel and the range is too | short. Only short flights of up to 1000 km and 90 minutes | will be in reach initially, jet fuel minus efficiency loses | is still over 3000 Wh/kg, 6 times more than these new | batteries. | VilleOr wrote: | Average US flight trip is about 800 km (~500 miles). If | even half of all flights were powered by electricity, the | impact on emissions would be huge. | maccard wrote: | Furthermore, the energy needed for takeoff is | significantly higher than the energy for cruising. For an | hour's flight, it's close to 50/50. The impact is | disproportionately skewed towards shorter fkights | zirgs wrote: | Wondering if we could build devices that assist with | takeoff - like it's done on aircraft carriers. Could save | some energy that way. | AdrianB1 wrote: | No. It is not the takeoff as in "raising the wheels from | the tarmac" part that is consuming most energy, but | reaching the flight altitude. Real case, with smaller | plane, I take off in 300 meters in less than 30 seconds | at max power, than raise to 3000m in more than 10 minutes | of 90% power. That makes the assisted takeoff less than | 10% of the energy to get to cruise altitude. | | I don't have the numbers for a jet fighter on a carrier, | but I think it is in the same range. The takeoff assist | is not for saving fuel, but to allow takeoff at the | loadout of the plane that would require otherwise a | longer runway or lighter loadout (less fuel and weapons). | bluGill wrote: | We could, but it would require new aircraft. Passenger | aircraft are not designed for that kind of stress. I'm | not sure that passengers would like that much | acceleration either. | | I don't know that it would actually save anything though. | Aircraft of carriers are held back while they throttle | the engine to full throttle. Only after the pilot is | convinced the engine will run long enough to take off do | they release the brakes - probably using more fuel than a | regular takeoff. (the other option is to get in the air | and then discover the engine isn't running and so you | crash land a few meters later). I'd want a real aircraft | engineer to speak to this. | AdrianB1 wrote: | You could save some energy by catapulting a plane at a | reasonable acceleration, like a glider is launched with a | ground tractor wire. I flied gliders this way and I think | the acceleration was not worse than a regular airliner. | Problem is, the saving is not worth the cost and | complexity. | | The carrier example is wrong, the planes stay on the | catapult only a few seconds while they go full throttle | (this takes time), even with the burn rate it is not a | significant quantity of fuel. Regular planes can do the | same on the runway, I did it myself several times for | fun, but it rarely bring benefits - the only place where | it helps is with very short runways. In any case, the | fuel consumption is not significant. | j2bax wrote: | How about you elevator passengers up to a runway that is | a thousand feet up in the air. Then use electric lines on | the runway to power the takeoff to avoid using any | onboard batteries until airborne. Just daydreaming here a | bit! | nerpderp82 wrote: | It is easy, you put small BLDCs in the wheels. No need to | push on air while you are on the ground. You could also | have basically a super car drone or a maglev rail under | the plane, launch it into the sky. | daliusd wrote: | Bicycles would benefit as well. I would love if my electric | bicycle were slightly lighter. | bluGill wrote: | Most people should achieve far more weight loss from | their belly than from their bike. But you can pay money | to make the bike light and that is easier than working on | yourself. | gibolt wrote: | 500-600 Wh/kg is the target for replacing average flight | durations. | | Fuel is one of the highest costs for an airline, so | eliminating the majority of that will make the demand for | any viable options go bananas, even with a much higher | upfront cost. | | Being seen as 'green' is a big bonus for the airline. | baq wrote: | If the tech takes off (pun intended) every major airport | will need a SMR. Which is maybe good? But politically | impractical _today_. | regularfry wrote: | Less of the "S". With current flight patterns you need | multiple gigawatts. Calculations based on 737s leaving | Gatwick: | | Energy density of the fuel: 9.6kWh/L | | 900 flights per day = one flight every 96 seconds | | 26024.706L per flight | | Total energy per flight: 9.6 x 26024.706kWh = 250MWh give | or take = 900GJ | | Total power supplied from Gatwick in the form of aviation | fuel: 900GJ/96s = 9.375GW. | | That's not only outside the range of SMRs, it's bigger | than any single nuclear power station that's been built, | by a comfortable margin. | | To make electric flight work you can't think in terms of | the way the current industry is structured because it's | _so_ distorted by the energy density of the current fuel. | maccard wrote: | That's assuming an overnight switch from what we have to | all electric, for one of the busiest airports in the | world. | | Thinking in terms of disruption (from the innovator | sense), their top 3 destinations [0] are Dublin, | Barcelona and Malaga. Skipping barcelona becauese it's as | busy, I don't think it's out of reach to consider that a | 737 could do a return trip to dublin or Malaga without | charging. | | Another perspective is that taking off is significantly | more energy intensive than cruising. According to [1], | takeoff is equivalent to an hour of cruising. One way of | looking at this is it only makes sense for mid haul | travel instead. If we replaced transatlantic flights, or | similar (us to Europe maybe) the savings would be immense | and significantly more achievable | | [0] https://www.gatwickairport.com/business- | community/about-gatw... | | [1] | https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47262/how- | much-.... | regularfry wrote: | Yep. The thing is, even if you divide the power needed by | two (by being smart about which planes you charge, or by | how much) and then by two _again_ (for a smaller airport) | you still need a full new power plant to supply it. It 's | _well_ out of SMR territory. | | The way you'd have to do it is something like the Tesla | approach: put small charging stations for luxury planes | in as many airports as possible (because nobody, but | nobody, will fly a plane into an airport they can't fly | out of), and build out from there. That way you can do | something financially interesting at SMR scale, and build | momentum for the next step on something marketed as | aspirational. Because the hardest SMR to build will be | the first. Once you've got one, installing a second | should be an easy sell. And two leads to four, and so on | and so forth. | | This is, of course, making the further assumption that | something can be done about charging times. Getting 90GJ | into a 737 currently takes about 23 minutes. That's 65MW, | which is a nontrivial problem to solve all on its own; | anything that slows down the recharge means longer queues | to turn around, which, one way or another, means more | land area or fewer flights for the airport, and worse | economics for the operator. | baq wrote: | Oof. | | Jet engines are 35% efficient, I'd assume electric planes | would be double that, does that change the calculation? | Naively I'd say we 'only' need 4.5GW? | VBprogrammer wrote: | I feel like the back of the envelope calculation must | have slipped a decimal point somewhere. 9GW is | approximately 1/4 of the total electrical consumption in | the whole of the UK. From memory aviation as a whole is | only 2% of global emissions (although it might have an | extra forcing effect due to being released directly into | the upper atmosphere) where as electricity generation is | 20-40% of emissions. | baq wrote: | google and wolfram alpha tells me one fully tanked 737 | stores 16 tons of kerosene, which translates to 261.1 GJ | at 35% efficiency (72.5 MWh). doesn't sound too far off. | assuming the same energy will be required for an electric | airliner and you want to charge it to full in an hour... | you probably need much more than 72.5MW power plant per | aircraft because fast charging is nonlinear...? numbers | which are hard to comprehend at scale in any case | regularfry wrote: | To paint a rough and ready picture, aviation emissions | are very heavily weighted towards richer, less populous | countries, whereas electricity generation (and | particularly fossil fuel generation) is (to a lesser | degree) tilted towards where the mass of population is: | https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint- | flying#:~:text=W... vs | https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity- | electric.... Note that the colour axis is a log scale. | It's a compounding effect: more people => more energy; | poorer => worse emissions and fewer flights per capita. | | I thought I must have slipped a power of 10 too somewhere | but if I did I can't spot it. | VBprogrammer wrote: | I found some reference to Gatwick using 2.6 billion | litres of fuel a year. If I follow the logic above I get | circa 8 billion litres. I think most of this is because a | Boeing 737 has a 3000nm range fully fueled which they | wouldn't be using normally. In fact I suspect it's | impossible to take off fully fueled and with a full | complement of passengers (it certainly is for lighter | aircraft). | | Between that and the efficiency difference mentioned | elsewhere I think that explains about an order of | magnitude. I'm totally willing to accept they'd need a | 1GW power station to power Gatwick but 9GW seems high. | regularfry wrote: | That weight constraint cuts both ways though, right? An | electric plane charged for a 500 mile flight weighs the | same as one charged for a 2000 mile flight, and the max | landing weight of (e.g.) a 737 is substantially lower | than the max takeoff weight. That means the maximum | passenger load of the electric plane can never be as high | as one fuelled by an energy source that leaves the plane | over the course of the flight. So yes it's more efficient | in terms of direct energy use, but it's less efficient in | terms of the ratio of work done moving the passengers to | work done moving the vehicle, first because you can't | stuff as many on, and second because the mass of the | vehicle itself doesn't drop over time. | | EDIT: unless, of course, you have removable batteries | that let you carry less weight for a shorter flight. That | might be the only way to make this practical, and would | have some other benefits: you could charge them off-site, | for instance. It creates a hell of a logistics problem, | but no bigger than liquid fuel. | regularfry wrote: | Also, one factor to take into consideration is that the | 9GW figure assumes that the refuelling is uniformly | distributed throughout the 24 hours. That won't be true, | I could believe peak usage being double the average. If | that's true, the worst-case 9GW isn't what you need to | work to, it's 18GW peak. If we go with the 2.6 billion vs | 8 billion L ratio as telling us the true power | requirement, that gets us back up to 2.925GW average, | 5.85GW peak. | oblio wrote: | What's SMR? | Flockster wrote: | I would assume a Small Modular Reactor. | mlsu wrote: | With the energy efficiency attainable by traveling in the | upper atmosphere, this might be the greenest possible | long range transportation. | | God such a tantalizing solar punk dream. I would love | just to _hear_ the inside of an electric commercial | airliner at altitude. | VBprogrammer wrote: | Presumably they would use something like an electrically | propelled ducted fan (basically the first stage of a high | bypass engine). The noise I imagine would be reasonably | similar. | nerpderp82 wrote: | I think a hybrid approach with a high bypass turbo fan | powered by an electric motor. The fan could then switch | over to a https://newatlas.com/automotive/inside-out- | wankel/ when at cruising altitude. Using biofuels, or | carbon air capture, we get long range and a closed carbon | cycle. | _puk wrote: | I doubt it would be classical music and whale song | playing over a beautifully calm scene.. | | More like kids watching movies without headphones, over | loud conversations and screaming babies if other public | transport is anything to go by. | | But we can dream! | SapporoChris wrote: | Experiences vary. I was on a Tokyo subway train (Chuo- | Sobu Line(Local)). For a couple of minutes after boarding | it was so quiet that it was eerie. When I started hearing | quiet noises I relaxed. | | Anyway, mass transit does not have to be noisy. It varies | by custom and culture. | ryalistik wrote: | [dead] | microjim wrote: | Yes that's correct. Probably a better way of articulating | what I meant to say is that unlike adding more battery mass | which gives you diminishing returns as that additional weight | must be carried too, improvements in energy density give you | gains closer to 1:1. Though in retrospect this isn't a very | interesting or insightful statement, hah. | [deleted] | mcapodici wrote: | Same with jet fuel on a plane. They calculate the amount to | fuel carefully to be efficient but safe. Too much and the plane | is heavier and uses more fuel. Too little and you might run out | if put into a holding then diverted. | | Obviously jet fuel is what it is it wont get more dense but a | more efficient engine means less fuel needed means even more | efficiency and so on. | MaxMatti wrote: | Not only that but too much might also cause you to have to | dump fuel in order for the plane to be able to land. | Swannie wrote: | The Qantas 16h 45m flight from Dallas to Sydney aims for | Brisbane, and then turns to Sydney as the plane approaches | Australia. (10th longest commercial route in the world). | | This allows the plane to land at Brisbane and refuel if the | calculations are done wrong. Couldn't find stats on how many | times it's had to land in BNE. | | Pre-COVID, it was apparently common to try and off-load | passengers to single stopover flights to reduce fuel needs (I | was one of those passengers, and the crew confirmed it was a | regular occurance). | isolli wrote: | It reminds me of this anecdote [0]: | | An example is Singapore Airlines' former New York to | Singapore flight, which could carry only 100 passengers | (all business class) on the 10,300-mile (16,600 km) flight. | According to an industry analyst, "It [was] pretty much a | fuel tanker in the air." | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft | crazygringo wrote: | Knowing nothing about it, what causes fuel calculations to | be done wrong? | | Is it math errors, or uncertainty about exact weight of | cargo and passengers, or wind conditions different from | predicted, or something else? | NovaDudely wrote: | It was something I had never considered but it is wild to | think about. I believe it was Vaclav Smil that highlighted it | to me. On its longest trip an A380(I think?) takes off | weighing 400 tons and lands weighing 200 tons. That kind of | thing is just cool to ponder. | ryan93 wrote: | It is literally insane how much oil there is. Planes use i | think less than 10% of world oil consumption. | 0xFF0123 wrote: | Rockets reaching orbit are an interesting example too. | heywhatupboys wrote: | 0,01 % maybe | anigbrowl wrote: | Good for drones too. | datadeft wrote: | > World's largest battery maker announces major breakthrough in | energy density > This is a little under 2x the density of current | batteries. | | Anything less than a ~400x increase is a minor breakthrough based | on my expectations. I would like to charge my phone once a year. | Triesault wrote: | Do you not feel this is an unreasonable expectation? I wouldn't | think we would ever get to the point where phones are only | charged once a year. This assumes that power consumption would | not increase over time. | oblio wrote: | Yup, OP forgot engineers also expand. | datadeft wrote: | I don't think so. | Tade0 wrote: | It's possible that this was sarcasm relating to how people | like to move goalposts all the time regarding EVs. | walrus01 wrote: | 500Wh/kg will be truly revolutionary _if_ it can sustain | reasonably high amperage draw rates, for UAV applications. | | For reference hobby lipo batteries used in small quadcopters are | around 155-160 Wh/kg. | | Lithium ion battery packs built from the very best Sony and | Panasonic high-C rate cells for UAV applications are right around | 250Wh/kg. | fnordpiglet wrote: | I sort of feel like this is what the inception of singularity | feels like. | fwungy wrote: | >no mention of cost | | Means expensive chemistry. | | >targeting aircraft first | | Means expensive chemistry | | >no mention of durability | | If they were highly durable this would be an important feature so | they're likely not. | | Sounds like these are going to be expensive special application | batteries. | chaorace wrote: | FWIW: lithium-ion was also expensive chemistry. If the promise | matches the reality, supply chains will eventually realign to | the point where consumer applications become feasible. | fwungy wrote: | We are likely in the incremental phase of battery innovation. | | You've got to balance so many factors to commercially release | a battery: safety, durability, reliability, weight, energy | density, cost. You can build cheap batteries, they just have | some terrible characteristics. | yc-kraln wrote: | 500 Wh/kg means Sulphur cathode, which also explains the solid | electrolyte. Roughly speaking, it'll be 3x as energy dense but | only a 1/2 as volumetrically efficient (so, a given capacity | battery will weigh 1/3 less but take up twice as much space). | | There are other approaches to Li-S (and Al-S and Mn-S) which will | be less expensive. Grats to CATL for bringing this to market, but | the race for sure isn't over yet. | elefanten wrote: | A lot of other comments are saying 2x as dense (that current | norms are around 250Wh/kg for mass produced and widely | available product)... can you square that with your 3x claim? | Am I missing something? | m463 wrote: | Honestly it doesn't seem like that big a drawback. EVs for | instance have reclaimed lots of space from under the hood, the | gas tank, the exhaust system and more. | TrainedMonkey wrote: | Maybe volumetric inefficiency is where "condensed" part of the | announcement comes in? Just spitballing here, would love to | know more details. | 2h wrote: | > 3x as energy dense but only a 1/2 as volumetrically efficient | (so, a given capacity battery will weigh 1/3 less | | It would weigh 1/3, not 1/3 less. | topper-123 wrote: | Someone should do a followup on all the batteries break-troughs | on the front page of HN over the last 5 years and count how many | got into production. | | Still, an announcement from a big company like this is a lot more | credible than from research labs or small start-ups, IMO. | tonyedgecombe wrote: | It's interesting that battery stories generate so much | opprobrium when battery performance has increased so | dramatically over the last couple of decades. | RivieraKid wrote: | What about the last decade? My guess is that iPhone battery | density hasn't improved at all. | Workaccount2 wrote: | Looking at currently available 18650s, they are the same | ones I was buying for my e-cig in 2015. Which were already | a year or two old at that point. | | However the prices seem to have come down a bit despite all | the inflation since then. | potamic wrote: | Don't know why, I just love esoteric words thrown into a | sentence when a simple one would do. | tmalsburg2 wrote: | ... in mice. | AtlasBarfed wrote: | Cycles? Operating temp range? Charge speed? Exciting press | release, gpt level details | arketyp wrote: | > gpt level details | | I like this meme. | rippercushions wrote: | Here's the official press release, but it doesn't have much | more info: https://www.catl.com/en/news/6015.html | it_citizen wrote: | I have the same questions. | | Hopefully gpt-level progress over existing tech :) | danans wrote: | Also, $/Wh | boringg wrote: | That high density energy is going to need some good fire | protection. Excited about the increased density coming out of | energy storage - these breakthroughs take a lot of research work. | ur-whale wrote: | Notably missing from the release: - cost? | - what new chemicals are involved and what is the environmental | impact? - how many cycles can the new battery take? | - volume? (density is always shown as weight/mass, it's not the | only thing that matters)? - how does it behave under | environmental changes (temp / pressure / etc ...) | acyou wrote: | Yes, there are tradeoffs with all of these. We can easily get | one or some good looking stats, but to get good results with | all of these parameters is the real challenge. | | The claims about new battery chemistry are rarely farfetched or | inaccurate, but we as a society (and especially the reporters) | don't do a good job of interpreting the claims, focusing on one | promising sounding parameter and neglecting all others. | | The manufacturers are also not helping by omitting this sort of | critically important information that you have highlighted | (lying by omission). | thangalin wrote: | The Hyundai Kona EV battery has a energy density of 141.3 Wh/kg | and range of 414 km, give or take. 500 / 141.3 * 414 km = 1,465 | km. | | Is that around the expected range, presuming a new battery is a | drop-in replacement? | | Lithium-air has an energy density of 11,140 Wh/kg, yielding | 32,639 km, which doesn't seem possible. | jeffbee wrote: | Lithium-air and all other -air batteries have outsourced part | of their mass to the atmosphere, which is also part of the | reason why liquid motor fuel has such high apparent density. | The joke with lithium-air batteries is they absorb oxygen when | they discharge, so a dead battery is full of lithium peroxide | and weighs significantly more than a charged one. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-04-21 23:01 UTC)